ADAPTIVE MITIGATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATING CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND

MITIGATION SOLUTIONS IN URBAN MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

by

Ilana Judah

B.Arch., McGill University, 1997

B.Sc. (Architecture), McGill University, 1996

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES

(Resources, Environment and Sustainability)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(Vancouver)

December 2020

© Ilana Judah, 2020

The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate
and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled:

Adaptive Mitigation: A Framework for Integrating Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Solutions
in Urban Multi-Unit Residential Buildings

submitted by Ilana Judah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree
of Master of Science

in Resources, Environment and Sustainability

Examining Committee:

Dr. Stephanie Chang, Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability (IRES) and
School of Community & Regional Planning (SCARP), The University of British Columbia
Supervisor

Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi, Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability (IRES),
The University of British Columbia
Supervisory Committee Member

Dr. John Robinson, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto
Additional Examiner

ii
Abstract

Climate change mitigation/sustainability initiatives for the built environment have become well
established over the past three decades. With increasing extreme weather events and climate
impacts, building industry stakeholders have more recently been advancing adaptation/resilience
policies and guidance. However, these initiatives have largely remained separate from
mitigation/sustainability, with very limited investigation of their interrelationship. This lack of
integration can result in unintended consequences such as increased greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, augmented risks, and negative health and well-being outcomes. Investigating
interactions between adaptation and mitigation strategies provides an opportunity to benefit
from synergies, minimize conflicts, and achieve more holistic project solutions. Many researchers
have identified the need for integrated assessment methods, frameworks and user-friendly
decision-support tools that capture both adaptation and mitigation. While integrated assessment
methods have been created for the municipal scale, they are lacking at the scale of buildings and
their immediate neighbourhoods.

As a response to this gap, this thesis aims to integrate adaptation and mitigation paradigms
through the development of an integrated evaluation framework for urban multi-unit residential
buildings (MURBs). The framework and associated tools were developed though an iterative
process using multiple methods that included document analysis of relevant academic and industry
literature, expert interviews in the U.S. and Canada, a series of stakeholder workshops, a survey
to elicit feedback on draft framework documents, and case examples from the partner
organization, BC Housing.

The resulting Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework
provides a process-oriented collaborative tool for building owners and design professionals to
integrate climate adaptation and mitigation considerations and identify synergies, trade-offs and
conflicts between proposed solutions. IBAMA is conceived primarily for the project planning
phase, with follow-through during design, construction and project occupancy. It is implemented by
means of an introductory primer, a detailed guidelines document, and an associated spreadsheet
tool. The framework considers the larger neighbourhood scale, incorporates both technical and
socio-economic factors, and is customizable to a project’s unique circumstances.

iii
Lay Summary

The green building movement has focused on mitigating climate change by improving the

environmental performance of buildings. Green building organizations, policies and frameworks

have been established to systematize environmental performance assessment. More recently, the

building industry has begun to advance policies and practices that help buildings and communities

adapt to climate change impacts. However, adaptation initiatives have primarily been developed

separately from, or as add-ons to, green building systems rather than being fully integrated with

them. Integrating approaches can help identify solutions that benefit both environmental

performance and climate adaptation objectives, while minimizing strategies that advance one

paradigm but undermine the other.

This thesis develops a system to integrate green building and climate adaptation approaches for

multi-unit residential buildings. Created using multiple qualitative methods, the resulting

framework provides collaborative tools for industry stakeholders to optimize project goals and

solutions that improve environmental performance while better adapting to climate change.

iv
Preface

This master’s thesis is an original intellectual product of the author, Ilana Judah. Design of the

thesis, including the scope for investigation, selection of research methods, data analysis,

framework development, and thesis writing was carried out by the author with input and

feedback from Dr. Stephanie Chang and Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi.

Research data reported in Chapters 3 and 4 was collected by the author under UBC Ethics

Certificate number H19-00910 (Principal Investigator: Dr. Stephanie Chang), with the project title

of “Adaptive mitigation: a framework for assessing synergies, conflicts, opportunities and trade-

offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban neighbourhoods".

v
Table of Contents

Abstract .....................................................................................................................................iii

Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................iv

Preface ........................................................................................................................................v

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................vi

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................ix

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................x

List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................xi

Glossary ..................................................................................................................................xiii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................xvi

Dedication ..............................................................................................................................xvii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Problem Context ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions ............................................................................................ 7

1.4 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................................9

2.1 Defining Climate Mitigation and Adaptation............................................................................ 9

2.2 Differences in Goals and Approaches ..................................................................................... 14

2.3 Perspectives on the Integration of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation ............................ 18

2.4 Neighbourhood, Infrastructure and Multi-Scalar Considerations ........................................ 20

2.5 Interactions between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation ................................................... 23

2.6 Assessment Frameworks............................................................................................................... 26

vi
 2.7 Successful Implementation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in Buildings............ 34

2.8 Development of an Integrated Building Adaptation-Mitigation Assessment Framework37

Chapter 3: Methods ..................................................................................................................39

3.1 Research Model ............................................................................................................................ 39

3.2 Research Context .......................................................................................................................... 39

3.3 Research Design ............................................................................................................................ 39

3.4 Analysis Methods .......................................................................................................................... 41

3.5 Phase One – Document Analysis ................................................................................................ 41

3.6 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interviews .................................................................... 48

3.7 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop ......................................................................................... 52

3.8 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Documents ................................................... 57

Chapter 4: Findings ..................................................................................................................60

4.1 Phase One – Document Analysis Findings ................................................................................ 60

4.2 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interview Findings ...................................................... 77

4.3 Phase One – Draft Framework Structure and Parameter Development ........................... 95

4.4 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop Feedback ................................................................... 102

4.5 Phase Two – Development of Draft Framework Tools ....................................................... 106

4.6 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Tools .......................................................... 111

Chapter 5: Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 117

5.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 117

5.2 Research Limitations .................................................................................................................. 122

5.3 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 124

5.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 125

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 126

vii
Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 139

Appendix A – IBAMA Primer ........................................................................................................... 139

Appendix B – IBAMA Reference Guide ......................................................................................... 157

Appendix C – Papers/ Documents reviewed for Document Analysis A................................... 301

Appendix D – Documents Reviewed for Document Analysis B................................................... 303

Appendix E – Supplementary Reference Documents................................................................... 306

Appendix F – Document Analysis Codes ........................................................................................ 309

Appendix G – Semi-Structured Interview Schedule..................................................................... 312

Appendix H – Semi-Structured Interview Codes .......................................................................... 313

Appendix I – Example Case Study Workshop Exercise ............................................................. 317

Appendix J – Feedback Survey on IBAMA tools.......................................................................... 324

Appendix K – IBAMA Questions for BC Housing Stakeholders ................................................. 325

viii
List of Tables

Table 3.1 Key Search terms for Academic Literature on Mitigation & Adaptation Frameworks ... 42

Table 3.2 Classification of Grey Literature for Document Analysis B .................................................. 44

Table 3.3 Classification of Supplementary Reference Documents ........................................................ 45

Table 3.4 Code Categories and Sub-categories for Document Analysis B......................................... 47

Table 3.5 Classification of Expert Interview Participants ....................................................................... 49

Table 3.6 Workshop Case Study Characteristics and Hazards ............................................................ 53

Table 4.1 Initial IBAMA Parameter Categories Derived from Document Analysis A ........................ 61

Table 4.2 Classification of Mitigation and Adaptation Documents Reviewed for Integration ........ 70

Table 4.3 Evolution of IBAMA Parameter Categories ............................................................................. 96

Table 4.4 Evaluation Criteria for Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies ........................................ 101

ix
List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Diagram of the Research Process ............................................................................................ 40

Figure 3.2 Initial Conceptual Framework Used for the Research Process............................................ 46

Figure 3.3 Draft Framework Categories and Interactions ...................................................................... 54

Figure 3.4 Excerpts of Verbal Feedback from Case Study Workshop ............................................... 56

Figure 4.1 Phase One Draft Framework Categories and Interactions ................................................. 97

Figure 4.2 Updated IBAMA Process Diagram ....................................................................................... 107

Figure 4.3 Radar Chart Comparing Adaptation Strategies for a Hazard Scenario ..................... 110

x
List of Abbreviations

ARMS Australian Resilience Measurement Scheme for Buildings

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

BIM Building Information Modeling

BREEAM® Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method

BRIC Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities

CSF Critical Success Factor

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GHGI Greenhouse Gas Intensity

H-LCA Hazard Lifecycle Assessment

IAM Integrated Assessment Model

IBAMA Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment

IBHS Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety

ICC International Code Council

ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

IgCC International Green Construction Code

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPD Integrated Project Delivery

LCA Lifecycle Assessment

LCCA Lifecycle Cost Analysis

LEED® Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

xi
LENSES Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems

MURB Multi-Unit Residential Building

PCIC Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium

PICS Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

PIEVC Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee

RCP Representative Concentration Pathway

REDiTM Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative

REDI Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index

ROI Return on Investment

SAF Sustainability Assessment Framework

THAM Threat/Hazard Assessment Model

xii
Glossary

Adaptation or Mitigation Co-benefit

Benefits of an adaptation or mitigation strategy that contributes to additional project or
community goals.

Adaptation–Mitigation Conflict
Adaptation action that has negative consequences for mitigation goals, or vice-versa.

Adaptation-Mitigation Synergy
Interaction between adaptation and mitigation strategies when the combined effect of the
strategies is equally or more beneficial than the effects of the individual strategies.

Adaptation–Mitigation Trade-off
Action that balances adaptation and mitigation goals when it is not possible to fully carry out
both objectives.

Avoided Costs or Losses

Hazard-related economic costs or losses that were avoided due to specific adaptation or
resilience measures.

Cascading Impacts
The secondary impacts of hazards following an initial natural or climate hazard event. Examples
include power outages due to wildfires, heavy rain causing landslides, reduced transportation
access after flooding, and supply chain interruptions following an earthquake.

Climate Adaptation
A gradual process of maintaining points of resilience to climate change that ultimately results in a
future state of being.

Climate Hazard
Agent of disaster for human settlements or to the environment. Includes wildfires, tropical cyclones,
thunderstorms, tornadoes, drought, flooding, rain, hail, snow, lightning, fog, wind, temperature
extremes, air pollution, and climatic change.

Climate Mitigation
Reduction of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to decrease global warming.

Climate Resilience
The capacity of a building or community to absorb external climate stresses; retain function;
reduce risk; and enable people, organizations, and systems to persist.

xiii
Compounding Hazards
The effects of multiple natural or climate hazard events occurring concurrently or at around the
same time. Examples include wildfires occurring during periods of extreme heat and drought, with
ensuing poor air quality. A compounding hazard can also include the same hazard occurring
multiple times within a short period, such as multiple heavy rainfalls over consecutive days.

Embodied GHG Emissions (or Embodied Carbon)

The total impact of all greenhouse gases emitted by the materials and construction of a building
throughout its lifespan. This includes the impacts of sourcing raw materials, manufacturing,
transportation, wastage, maintenance, repairs, and disposal or recovery.

Greenhouse Gas Intensity (GHGI)

In reference to buildings, the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of building area (or
volume) per annum.

Hazard
The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical impact
that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to
property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provisions, ecosystems, and environmental resources.

Hazard Lifecycle Assessment (H-LCA)

Lifecycle assessment that takes into account the estimated impacts on, repairs to, and potential
replacement of a structure due to a hazard event.

Hazard Mitigation
Measures that aim to lessen physical damage to natural and built environments during and after
hazard events, and also reduce impacts on the social and economic networks of a community.

Lifecycle Assessment (LCA)

A cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-cradle analysis technique to assess environmental impacts
associated with all the stages of a product's life, from raw material extraction through materials
processing, manufacture, distribution, use, and recycling or disposal.

Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

A method for evaluating all relevant costs over time of a project, product, or measure. It takes
into consideration all costs including first costs, such as capital investment costs, purchase, and
installation costs; future costs, such as energy costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, capital
replacement costs, financing costs; and any resale, salvage, or disposal cost; over the lifetime of
the project or product.

Maladaptation
Reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-term vulnerability, or increasing the vulnerability
of other systems, sectors or social groups over any time horizon.

Multi-hazard (or Multi-hazard Approach)

An approach that considers more than one hazard in a given place and the interrelations
between these hazards, including their simultaneous or cumulative occurrence and their potential
interactions.
xiv
Net-Zero Building (or Zero Carbon)
A highly energy efficient building that produces onsite, or procures, carbon-free renewable
energy or high-quality carbon offsets to offset the annual carbon emissions associated with
building operations, and sometimes materials.

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)

Greenhouse concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Four pathways were used for climate modeling and research for the IPCC
fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of
which are considered possible depending on the volume of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted in
the years to come. Additional RCP scenarios have been developed since AR5.

Resilience Dividend
The difference in the outcomes between a scenario with a resilience approach and one with a
non-resilient business-as-usual approach. It quantifies both the direct returns to the immediate
resilience goal, as well as the societal and financial co-benefits.

Risk
The possibility of injury, loss, damage or negative environmental impact created by a hazard.
Risk is a function of the probability and severity of a hazard event, exposure to the hazard, and
the vulnerability of the people or physical assets exposed.

Sustainability
• Meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs.
• Increasing quality of life with respect to environmental, social and economic considerations,
both in present and future generations.

Urban Heat Island (UHI)

An urban area that is significantly warmer than its surroundings. This is due to the concentration of
waste heat generated by buildings, transportation systems, and industry; less vegetated area,
and a large percentage of hard surfaces that absorb solar radiation.

Vulnerability
The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including climate variability and extremes.

xv
Acknowledgements

My work at UBC was primarily carried out on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of

the Coast Salish peoples: the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), Stó:lō and Səl̓ilwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-

Waututh), and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) Nations.

I am extremely grateful for the guidance and wisdom of my advisor Dr. Stephanie Chang, who

has posed thoughtful questions and provided insightful feedback throughout this process. My

gratitude also extends to Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi, who has been invaluable for providing his

critical eye and practical perspective.

This work is the result of a successful partnership between UBC, BC Housing and the Pacific

Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). I would like to acknowledge PICS for funding this research

under the Research Engagement Program (Proposal # OP19SC). In addition, I would like to

acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for their

funding support. This research would also not have been possible without the resources provided

by BC Housing. I am indebted to BC Housing project team members Wilma Leung and Magda

Szpala, who provided access to stakeholders, case studies and feedback throughout the process.

Sara Muir-Owen, my PICS contact, was also incredibly supportive in managing the partnership.

My research benefitted immensely from the numerous stakeholders and colleagues in BC and New

York City, who took the time to participate in interviews, workshops, comment on draft documents,

or otherwise provide guidance. I am grateful to have been enriched by their perspectives.

Lastly, I would like to thank my wonderful life partner Dave, my mother Paula, as well as my other

family members and dear friends for their love and moral support.
xvi
Dedication

This is the Dedication.

Dedicated to Isaac, Lara, Rohan, and Sol.

xvii
Chapter 1: Introduction

My awareness of the relationship between climate mitigation and adaptation was first raised

following the New York City building industry’s response to Hurricane Sandy 1. While industry
0F

professionals were very familiar with climate mitigation and sustainable building frameworks such

as LEED®, BREEAM®, and energy codes; there was uncertainty about how to consider climate

adaptation and resilience and appropriately advise clients. Following Sandy, some adjustments

were made to building codes (Urban Green Council, n.d.), zoning regulations (NYC Department of

City Planning, 2019), and flood maps (NYC Department of City Planning, 2017). Many technical

resources and guidelines were also available from organizations such as the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA). However, unlike the LEED® rating system that focused on climate

mitigation and sustainability, a consistent and accepted methodology to address climate

adaptation and resilience in buildings was missing. Guidance was emerging from The Resilient

Design Institute (Wilson, 2015), who created the LEED® Pilot Credits for Resilient Design

(Blackwelder, 2019), and through the RELi rating system (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b), but

at the time, these were in early development or pilot phases.

With respect to specific strategies, post-Sandy adaptation and resilience proposals for coastal

hardening (Gorman, 2020) and additional emergency back-up generator capacity (Satow,

2013) posed conflicts with GHG emissions reduction and sustainability goals. At the same time,

some recommendations were synergistic, such as the use of passive design strategies, on-site co-

generation (Urban Green Council, 2013), and green infrastructure for stormwater management

(New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2015). Climate mitigation and

1 The observations outlined in this introduction stem for my experiences as a Senior Architect and Director of
Sustainability at a large New York City architecture firm between 2008-2018, and as co-chair of the American
Institute of Architects’ Committee on the Environment, New York City Chapter, from 2010-2016.
1
sustainability advocates, while recommending these same synergistic solutions, were also

promoting all-electric buildings as a GHG emissions reduction strategy, without clearly

investigating risks associated with the reliability of the electricity infrastructure (Urban Green

Council, 2019a).

My project experiences echoed this siloed approach between mitigating climate impacts and

adapting to them. In some cases, clients had strong commitments to energy efficiency, climate

mitigation and sustainable design but had yet to address adaptation and resilience beyond code

requirements. In other instances, they prioritized climate resilience and had less interest in

mitigation or sustainability efforts that exceeded a mandated baseline. As such, I perceived the

potential of a more integrated approach to addressing climate impacts in the built environment,

whereby adaptation/resilience goals could be leveraged to incorporate mitigation/sustainability

strategies, or vice versa. For example, the resilience benefits of the Passive House Standard could

be used to convince a client of its value even though it was conceived as a climate mitigation

framework.

1.1 Problem Context

1.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Buildings

Buildings have a significant responsibility in contributing to climate change. They account for a

substantial proportion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and therefore play an important part

in the development of climate mitigation solutions. Globally, buildings (28%) and construction

(11%) were responsible for 39% of energy-related C02 emissions in 2015 (UN Environment and

International Energy Agency, 2017). In Canada, 17% of 2015 national GHG emissions were

attributed to buildings (Senate Canada, 2018). This proportion increases in cities, where

approximately 70% of emissions are building-related (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). For example,

2
buildings were responsible for 67% of New York City’s 2016 GHG emissions (The City of New

York, 2017b) and 59% of Vancouver’s 2017 GHG emissions (City of Vancouver, 2019b) 2. 1F

1.1.2 Climate Change Impacts on Buildings and Occupants

Buildings and their occupants are also highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change,

particularly in cities, where interactions between climate hazards, infrastructure systems, growing

urban populations, diverse cultures, real-estate development and economic activities can

exacerbate disaster impacts (Chang, Yip, & Tse, 2018; Rosenzweig et al., 2018). In British

Columbia, where many residential buildings lack mechanical ventilation and air filtration, wildfires

in 2018 degraded air quality to dangerous levels (Wang, 2019) and displaced over 65,000

people, many of whom came to Vancouver for shelter (City of Vancouver, 2019e). Current worst

case scenario flooding damages in Vancouver are estimated to cost over $40B CAN (City of

Vancouver, 2019e). In New York City, approximately 305,000 homes were damaged or

destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, representing $3.2B US in flood insurance claims (“Hurricane

Sandy’s Impact, By The Numbers,” 2013). Nationally, the U.S. incurred an estimated $351.2B US

in insured property losses from catastrophes between 2010-2019, $111B US in 2017 alone

(Insurance Information Institute, 2020).

1.1.3 Climate Change and Multi-Unit Residential Buildings

Residential buildings generate more than half of the GHG emissions from buildings in the U.S.

(Onat, Egilmez, & Tatari, 2014). Households also account for 42% of total U.S. C02 emissions

from fossil fuel combustion, combining emissions from residential buildings (22%) and passenger

travel (20%) (U.S. EPA, 2012 as cited in S. Lee & Lee, 2014). Residential buildings were

2Government of Canada, New York City and City of Vancouver GHG reporting accounts for emissions associated
with building operations, but not embodied emissions associated with building materials and construction.
3
responsible for 20% of 2014 GHG emissions in the City of Vancouver (City of Vancouver, 2015)

and 32% of 2016 GHG emissions in New York City (The City of New York, 2017b).

Multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs) are a critical typology with respect to climate change

impacts. Not only do they have aggregated populations that may increase the number of people

exposed to climate hazards, but can often have more vulnerable residents such as elderly and

low-income populations (Glaeser, Kahn, & Rappaport, 2008). MURBs can also serve as a positive

force for improving urban resilience by connecting residents to social systems and resources, which

is especially important for vulnerable populations (Charoenkit & Kumar, 2014). This improves

resilience both within the MURB, as well as enhancing the broader community’s capacity for

resilience (Vale, Shamsuddin, Gray, & Bertumen, 2014).

1.1.4 Climate Change Policies and Frameworks for Buildings

1.1.4.1 Climate Mitigation and Sustainability

There have been over 60 frameworks or rating systems developed to focus on climate mitigation

and sustainability at the building, neighbourhood and community scales; both in North America

and internationally (Matthews, Sattler, & Friedland, 2014). Typically structured as a series of

mandatory requirements, and often coupled with points-based optional measures, they were

designed to increase the environmental performance of buildings by reducing resource use and

site impacts, improving energy efficiency and GHG emissions, and by creating healthy indoor

environments (Phillips, Troup, Fannon, & Eckelman, 2017).

Most of these systems were conceived to be voluntarily adopted by developers and institutions as

they advanced their organizations’ sustainability goals (Dyer & Dyer, 2017). As the frameworks

gained recognition, they were referenced in policies by governments when mandating or

incentivizing green buildings (Retzlaff, 2009). For example, LEED® was legislated as a
4
requirement for pubic buildings by numerous US state and municipal governments (van der

Heijden, 2015), as well as US federal organizations (Bonham, 2013). In Canada, the BC Energy

step code echoes approaches taken in Passive House Institute certification, R-2000™, Energy Star

for New Homes™, Net Zero Home™ and Net Zero Ready Home™ programs (Government of

British Columbia, 2017).

In order to align mitigation and sustainability frameworks and strategies with standard building

code language and regulatory formats, the International Code Council (ICC) created a model

Green Construction Code (IgCC) (Meacham, 2016). Standards developed by professional

organizations such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) have been also used as models to develop widely adopted codes such as the

International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (International Code Council, 2018).

1.1.4.2 Climate Adaptation and Resilience

Climate adaptation and resilience initiatives are being developed predominantly at the regional

and municipal scales (Hunt & Watkiss, 2011), with multiple frameworks and processes for

approaching adaptation at this scale advancing though the efforts of governments, as well as

organizations such as ICLEI and the Rockefeller Foundation (Sharifi, 2016). Though initiatives for

neighbourhoods are emerging (City of Vancouver, 2017c; Weisbrod, 2016), there are limited

examples of frameworks for adaptation and resilience at the neighbourhood scale.

At the building and infrastructure scales, there are numerous adaptation and resilience

frameworks and references (Phillips et al., 2017) typically developed for a specific infrastructure

typology (Hosseini, Barker, & Ramirez-Marquez, 2016) and/or hazard, with a few

comprehensive frameworks such as RELi (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b).

5
A standard means of integrating risk-based planning in the building industry is in the form of

building codes. Their primary objective is to provide life-safety and collapse prevention under

pre-determined design events by defining the minimum level of threat that a building must be

able to tolerate (Kurth, Keenan, Sasani, & Linkov, 2019). Many countries have incorporated some

resilience measures into building codes, though the interpretation of resilience varies across codes

much more than sustainability, in addition to the variability with regards to which hazards are

addressed (Meacham, 2016).

1.2 Problem Statement

Climate change mitigation and sustainability initiatives for the built environment have been well

established and formalized within the building design and construction industry. More recently

with increasing extreme weather events, stakeholders have recognized that cities and buildings

must also adapt to the changing climate and have been rapidly advancing applicable policies

and guidance. However, investigation of the interrelationship between adaptation/resilience and

mitigation/sustainability initiatives for buildings has been very limited, both with respect to the

design process, and in climate policies and frameworks. Depending upon which strategies are

employed and how, this may cause unintended consequences such as increased greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions, augmented risks to buildings, and negative health and well-being outcomes for

occupants. By investigating potential interactions between mitigation and adaptation strategies,

there is an opportunity to benefit from synergies that can minimize unnecessary redundancy,

reduce additional costs, as well as improve overall building performance and quality of life.

1.2.1 Integration of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Methods

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted that integrating mitigation and

adaptation deserves the highest priority in urban planning, urban design, and urban architecture,

6
to avoid cities locking into counterproductive infrastructure and policies. More specifically, they

identify the need for integrated assessment methods and frameworks that capture both

adaptation and mitigation aspects, as well as user-friendly decision-support tools that incorporate

the needs of users and allow broad participation of multiple stakeholders (Rosenzweig et al.,

2018). While integrated assessment methods have been developed for the municipal scale

(Solecki et al., 2015; Walsh, 2013), they are lacking at the scale of buildings and their

immediate neighbourhoods (Hamin & Gurran, 2009).

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions

Given the absence of a thorough assessment method to support unified climate adaptation and

mitigation decision-making at the building and surrounding neighbourhood scales, the primary

research objective is to develop an integrated climate adaptation and mitigation process and

framework that responds to this gap.

The aspiration is that this methodology will enable policy-makers, building owners, designers,

contractors, and building managers to:

• Minimize conflicts between climate mitigation and adaptation goals in design and

construction practices;

• Identify solutions that are synergistic to both climate mitigation and adaptation;

• Consistently evaluate trade-offs between proposed mitigation and adaptation strategies;

• Communicate and function more effectively as an integrated ownership, design,

construction, and operations team when establishing climate-related goals and strategies.

The framework is targeted to urban multi-unit residential buildings due to their significant

contribution to GHG emissions and the potential impacts of climate hazards on large numbers of

residents, particularly those who are more vulnerable. It has been created for new construction

7
projects rather than existing facilities, as implementation is likely to first occur on new buildings.

However, the framework can be adapted to accommodate building retrofits through some minor

adjustments.

The research and development process was informed by input from BC Housing’s Research Group

as part of their Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) initiative (BC Housing, 2019).

The methods used to develop the framework attempt to answer the following research questions:

1. How can the design process for urban multi-unit residential buildings effectively integrate

both climate mitigation and adaptation considerations?

2. How can interactions between climate mitigation and adaptation strategies for urban

multi-unit housing designs be consistently evaluated to inform more integrated and

synergistic decision-making?

1.4 Thesis Structure

Five chapters are included in this thesis. In addition to the Introduction, Chapter 2 summarizes the

relevant literature that informs the research direction. Chapter 3 describes the research design

and multiple methods employed. Chapter 4 presents the research findings and how they were

used in the development and testing of the framework. Chapter 5 discusses conclusions, research

limitations, suggested next steps regarding application of the framework, and recommendations

for future research.

8
Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Defining Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Adaptation and mitigation represent two approaches in response to climate change. They both

seek to avoid the potential damages of global climate change, and they both seek to support the

development of present and future generations in a sustainable manner (Dang, Michaelowa, &

Tuan, 2003).

2.1.1 Climate Mitigation, Sustainability, and Green Building

Climate mitigation falls under the broader framework of sustainability, which is frequently

defined as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development,

1987, p.16). Sustainability is focused on increasing the quality of life with respect to

environmental, social and economic considerations, both in the present and for future generations

(Marchese et al., 2018).

Orr makes the distinction between ‘ecological’ and ‘technological’ sustainability, considering both

to be necessary. ‘Ecological’ sustainability emphasizes a bio-centric view and the importance of

enabling natural systems to endure, as well as retention of their biodiversity. By contrast,

‘technological’ sustainability stresses making technical and engineering approaches more efficient

(Orr, 1992 as cited in Cole, 2012).

With respect to the built environment, Cole differentiates between sustainability and green

building. While he notes that ‘sustainable building’ and ‘sustainable design’ are often used

interchangeably with ‘green building’, ‘green’ design and building typically fall under Orr’s

‘technological’ sustainability definition, focusing on reducing resource use and adverse

9
environmental impacts while promoting the health and comfort of building occupants (Cole, 2012);

whereas sustainability is based on a bio-centric view that places humans in a larger natural

context, focusing on constraints and on fundamental value and behavioural change (Robinson,

2004 as cited in Cole, 2012).

At the neighbourhood scale, Churchill and Baetz developed a set of guidelines for sustainable

communities, which address a broad range of factors, including population density, alternative

modes of transportation, community agriculture, water re-use, and green building techniques

(Churchill & Baetz, 1999 as cited in Engel-Yan et al., 2005). LEED® for Neighbourhood

Development also includes ecological factors and socio-economic considerations such as

affordable housing, proximity to jobs, and community outreach and involvement (U.S. Green

Building Council, 2016b).

At the building scale, the Conseil International du Bâtiment articulated seven “Principles of

Sustainable Construction: reducing resource consumption, reusing resources, using recyclable

resources, protecting nature, eliminating toxins, applying lifecycle costing, and focusing on

quality” (Kilbert, C., 1994 as cited in Roostaie, Nawari, & Kibert, 2019, p.134). The U.S. Green

Building Council classifies sustainable building according to the following LEED® categories:

location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, material

and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation (Roostaie et al., 2019).

Climate mitigation involves reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing any

processes that remove GHG emissions from the atmosphere with the goal of preventing global

warming (Walsh, 2011). Mitigation efforts were first formalized at the international scale in 1992

via the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit, which

established non-binding targets to reduce CO2 emissions (United Nations, 1992), and have
10
continued via binding targets for developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol (United Nations,

1998) and most recently, the Paris Agreement (United Nations, 2015). Climate mitigation efforts

at the building scale involve reducing GHG emissions from the production of building materials,

building operations such as power, heating and cooling; and transportation to and from the

building (Norman, MacLean, & Kennedy, 2006).

The emerging concept of regenerative design goes beyond traditional climate mitigation, green

building or sustainability definitions. It is characterized as a whole living system approach that

looks at how a building’s design, construction and use can positively influence the social, ecological

and economic health of the place it is connected to (Cole, 2012). Aspects of regenerative design

may inform ways of connecting climate mitigation and sustainability to adaptation and resilience

approaches.

2.1.2 Climate Adaptation and Resilience

Resilience has a wide range of definitions from multiple disciplines such as ecology, global

environmental change, social sciences, economics and engineering. The concept of resilience was

established in the field of ecology by Holling, which he defined as “a measure of the persistence

of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same

relationships between populations or state variables”. He notes that stability “represents the

ability of a system to return to an equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance; the more

rapidly it returns to equilibrium and the less it fluctuates, the more stable it would be” (Holling,

1973, p.14).

This definition expanded as the concept of resilience was adopted by other fields. Adger defines

‘social resilience’ as the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and

disturbances due to social, political, and environmental change (Adger, 2000). Rose and Liao
11
define ‘economic resilience’ as the inherent ability and adaptive response that enables individual

businesses and entire regions to avoid maximum potential losses (Rose & Liao, 2005). In contrast

to ecological and social definitions, ‘engineering resilience’ is more static and can be

characterized as the rapid return of a system to its original pre-disturbance state (Marchese et

al., 2018) rather than capturing the adaptive or transformative aspects of resilience (Matthews et

al., 2014).

Within the field of disaster resilience, multiple definitions of resilience also exist. Keating et al.

note that many of these definitions recognize the importance of disaster risk management by

using terms such as ‘plan’, ‘absorb’, ‘adapt to’, and ‘recover’ (Keating et al., 2017). This includes

hazard mitigation, which aims to lessen the physical damage to the natural and built environment

during and after hazard events, and also reduce impacts on the social and economic networks of

a community (Matthews et al., 2014). Other disaster resilience definitions include opportunities

for development and transformation, incorporating phrases such as “adaptive processes that

facilitate the ability of the social system to re-organize, change, and learn in response to a

threat” (Cutter et al., 2008, p.599). Taking these multiple aspects into consideration, Keating et

al. propose a conceptualization of disaster resilience as “the ability of a system, community or

society to pursue its social, ecological and development objectives, while managing its disaster

risk over time in a mutually reinforcing way” (Keating et al., 2017, p.65).

The concepts of vulnerability and risk are also critical to understanding disaster resilience. Adger

defines vulnerability as “the state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated

with environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt” (Adger, 2006,

p.268). Cutter et al. define vulnerability as “the pre-event, inherent characteristics or qualities of

social systems that create the potential for harm”, as a function of the exposure and sensitivity of

12
a system (Cutter et al., 2008, p.599). Blaikie et al. map the development of vulnerability

beginning with root causes: economic, demographic and political processes. These manifest as

dynamic pressures, or activities that translate the effects of root causes into unsafe actions. This

ultimately results in unsafe conditions, forms in which the vulnerability of a population is expressed

in time and space with respect to a hazard. The level of risk results from the product of the

degree of vulnerability and the intensity of the hazard (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, & Wisner, 1994).

Roostaie et al. note that despite the wide application of resilience in multiple disciplines, an

accepted definition of resilience has not been achieved within the architecture, engineering and

construction industry. For example, urban planners think of resilience as recovery from an event or

a disaster, while the insurance sector sees resilience through the lens of risk and hazard mitigation

(Roostaie et al., 2019). At the neighbourhood scale, Uda and Kennedy define a neighbourhood’s

resilience as its ability to deal with shocks and stresses and continue to meet the essential needs of

the community (Uda & Kennedy, 2015). At the building scale, Phillips et al. define resilience as a

building that resists physical damage, may be quickly and cost-effectively repaired if damaged,

and maintains key building functionality either throughout a disruptive event or restores a target

operation level more quickly after such an event occurs (Phillips et al., 2017). Zhao et al. expand

this definition to include social and community factors, defining resilience as “the capacity of a

residential structure to absorb external stresses; retain function; reduce industrial risk; and help

vulnerable people, organizations, and systems persist” (Zhao, McCoy, & Smoke, 2015, p.2).

In contrast to the more static definition of engineering resilience, current interpretations of

resilience in the built environment focus on adaptability and dynamic self-adjustment, what Folke

refers to as “persisting with change on the current path of development” (Folke, 2016 as cited in

Roostaie et al., 2019, p.136). The idea of ‘adaptive capacity’ is incorporated into several

13
conceptualizations of resilience, and can be defined as “the ability of a system to adjust to

change, moderate the effects, and cope with a disturbance” (Burton et al., 2002; Brooks et al.,

2005 as cited in Cutter et al., 2008, p.600). Along these lines, Meerow and Newell define urban

resilience as “the ability of an urban system—and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-

technical networks across temporal and spatial scales—to maintain or rapidly return to desired

functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change, and to quickly transform systems that

limit current or future adaptive capacity” (Meerow & Newell, 2016, p.45).

Keenan’s interpretations of adaptation and resilience in the built environment are closely aligned

with the approach taken in this thesis. He describes adaptation as an expansion of resilience that

takes into account transformation toward future conditions, noting that “while resilience can be

thought of as a preservation of the entire operations of the status quo of a host…, adaptation is

a gradual process of maintaining periodic points of resilience which ultimately results in a future

state of being which is superior to its predicated state in its ability to flexibly respond and

continue to be resilient to known and unknown external stimuli…”(Keenan, 2014, p.20). Resilience

and adaptation are therefore closely related in that resilience is an internal process of

adaptation, along with hazard mitigation and coping, but each concept differs in its future states

of being and its long-term implications in response to a diversity of stimuli. Keenan posits that both

a social and technical understanding of adaptation is needed for buildings, as they do not

innately adapt without the intent and intervention of humans (Keenan, 2014).

2.2 Differences in Approaches and Goals

While mitigation and adaptation both aim to reduce the risks associated with climate change,

they have for the most part operated as separate paradigms. Historically, climate action

planning focused primarily on mitigation, or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions (Tang,

14
Dai, Fu, & Li, 2013), with the main goal of preventing climate change tipping points (Watkiss,

Benzie, & Klein, 2015). Watkiss et al. note that mitigation has typically been advanced in policies

that are distinct from adaptation and can be assessed using a single global metric—GHG

emissions—representing a common global burden. This allows for scientific definitions of policy

goals and the quantitative analysis of progress, from global to local levels. Mitigation is seen as a

public good where benefits are generally experienced at the global level, primarily over long-

time scales, while the associated costs are borne locally and in the shorter term. It requires

international coordinated action to be effective, although it is being advanced by smaller

jurisdictions such as cities, communities, and companies (Watkiss et al., 2015). Shaw et al. note

that while the emission of greenhouse gases may be effectively governed at the global level,

specific mitigation projects are implemented locally, having implications for community-based

sustainability priorities (Shaw, Burch, Kristensen, Robinson, & Dale, 2014).

Climate mitigation goals have been established globally and nationally, but also in a substantial

number of regional and local governments in the United States and Canada using tools such as

municipal climate action plans (Krause, 2011; Shaw et al., 2014). GHG emissions reduction

targets have also been set at institutional and real estate portfolio scales through programs such

as the College and University President’s Climate Commitment (Dyer & Dyer, 2017) and the

Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB), an environmental, social and governance

benchmark for property companies, real estate investment trusts, and developers (Christensen,

Robinson, & Simons, 2018).

Adaptation and resilience are primarily concerned with impacts that are local or regional, and

have a range of varied metrics to assess both impacts and adaptation responses (Christiansen,

Martinez, & Naswa, 2018). Most adaptation involves actions of private entities and/or public

15
arrangements of affected communities, and more recently national policies. As compared to

mitigation, adaptation initiatives tend to be short to medium term in nature, with some longer-term

aspects. They involve a mix of local public good but also private adaptation involving disparate

institutions and actors who may act autonomously or through planned action, either proactively or

reactively (Watkiss et al., 2015). Unlike mitigation, where greenhouse gas emissions can be

measured to examine the effectiveness of policy initiatives, there are no similar standardized

metrics available for adaptation, which is lagging mitigation in the development of tools,

methodologies, and indicators (Ford & Berrang-Ford, 2016).

Due to this lack of common metrics, adaptation and resilience goals have been more challenging

to develop. Meerow and Newell establish a process for setting resilience goals at the urban scale

by careful consideration of what and who the resilience approach is for, but also considering

where, when, and why, thereby including a social equity lens (Meerow & Newell, 2016). For

individual buildings and infrastructure, risk assessment is used as the primary mechanism for

setting goals (Kurth et al., 2019). Here, resilience goals may be defined as the ability to resist

physical damage, quick and cost-effective repair if damaged, maintaining key functions during a

disruptive event, and rapid restoration of a target operational level after the event (Phillips et

al., 2017). Uda and Kennedy propose establishing adaptation goals through the lens of meeting

essential needs of a community impacted by a climate hazard. They define these as needs that

must be met in order for a neighbourhood to be deemed continuing to function (Uda & Kennedy,

2015). This includes basic life support needs as drinking water and sanitation, adequate food,

appropriate medical assistance, shelter through housing and clothing, and fuel for cooking and

heating (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2000), as well as

utilities, transportation, basic appliances, and communications (Sarlo, 2011 as cited in Uda &

Kennedy, 2015). Sheltering-in-place is also emerging as a disaster resilience objective (Haynes et

16
al., 2009), particularly for vulnerable populations that may have increased risks associated with

evacuation (Dosa et al., 2012; Lindell, 2019).

There are several explanations as to why mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience

have been operating in separate domains. Wilbanks and Sathaye acknowledge the inherent

difficulties of integrating mitigation and adaptation strategies due to differences in how they

function, who makes and implements decisions, how they are funded, and who ultimately benefits

from them (Wilbanks & Sathaye, 2007). Tol highlights the distinct types of stakeholder input

required for each, and variances in temporal and spatial scales (Tol, 2005). Biebroek et al.

contrast the differences in framing between mitigation, which is largely economic and

technologically-oriented; and adaptation, which is more ecologically and socially oriented

(Biesbroek et al., 2009 as cited in Shaw et al., 2014). Gopfert et al. note that joint

institutionalization of mitigation and adaptation in local governments is lacking (Göpfert,

Wamsler, & Lang, 2019). Watkiss et al. identify the differences in timing, where adaptation

policies and actions have lagged behind mitigation, as another reason. In addition, the delays

between costs and resultant benefits are greater for mitigation than adaptation (Watkiss et al.,

2015). Fundamentally, a key distinction between sustainability (of which mitigation is a part) and

resilience noted by Bocchini et al. is that sustainability assumes consistent conditions over time—

tomorrow will be like today—whereas adaptation and resilience do not (Bocchini, Frangopol,

Ummenhofer, & Zinke, 2014).

Separate approaches to mitigation and adaptation have been institutionalized due to initial

prioritization of mitigation, differences in timing and scale, and distinct approaches to goal-setting

and implementation. At the same time, local governments are responsible for a significant share

of both mitigation and adaptation initiatives. As climate impacts continue to grow and adaptation

17
becomes more of a priority at the local, national and global scales, the value of integrating

mitigation and adaptation efforts merits investigation.

2.3 Perspectives on the Integration of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

The appeal to integrate climate mitigation and adaptation dates to the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change’s First Assessment Report (FAR), which called for “developing methodologies to

evaluate the trade-off between limitation [i.e., mitigation] and adaptation strategies"

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change & Houghton, 1990, p.132), and continues to be

reiterated by climate scientists. Grafakos et al. assert that the integration of climate change

adaptation and mitigation planning and actions is critical to ensure that these are mutually

reinforcing, to realise synergistic efficiencies, to maximise the impact of limited city resources and

to minimise any potential conflicts that could lead either to maladaptation or malmitigation

(Grafakos, Trigg, Landauer, Chelleri, & Dhakal, 2019).

Dang et al. remark that integrating mitigation and adaptation in policies and practical decision-

making processes may have some important benefits (Dang et al., 2003). For example, Wilbanks

et al. argue that if mitigation can be successful in keeping climate impacts at a lower level,

adaptation can be successful in coping with more of the resulting impacts. Furthermore, they note

that payoffs, trade-offs and complementarities between mitigation and adaptation approaches

necessarily must be considered due to the limited resources available to address climate impacts

(Wilbanks, Leiby, Perlack, Ensminger, & Wright, 2007).

Watkiss et al. caution that autonomous reactive adaptation is unlikely to lead to complementary

mitigation–adaptation linkages on its own, and that synergistic policy will be needed to overcome

barriers. However, they observe that implementation may be challenging due to differences

between mitigation and adaptation paradigms (Watkiss et al., 2015). Landauer et al.’s literature
18
review also concludes that adaptation and mitigation should be considered together, but that

further research is needed to develop research methodologies and practical tools to help urban

actors exploit the synergies and avoid the conflicts that may arise (Landauer, Juhola, &

Söderholm, 2015).

While some exploration of interactions between mitigation and adaptation is taking place at the

global, national and municipal scales, investigation at the building and neighbourhood scales is

limited (Hamin & Gurran, 2009). Keenan posits that adaptation and resilience at the building

scale are, in theory, dependent on sustainable resource allocation and are practically benefited

by the diffusion of sustainable practices, while adaptive capacity of organizations and building

owners may also promote the diffusion and execution of sustainable practices (Keenan, 2016).

Laukkonen et al. call for “a methodology and comparison tool to assess the most cost-effective

and appropriate strategies for each community” (Laukkonen et al., 2009, p.287). This proposed

tool would assist planners with prioritization of different strategies, identify complementary and

contradictory strategies, and “visualize and compare all possible mechanisms in order to make

choices and take decisions” (Laukkonen et al., 2009, p.291). The need for these tools at the

building scale is conveyed by Matthews et al. who recommend integrating sustainability and

resilience measures into a framework that could be used for planning, design, and construction

projects (Matthews et al., 2014).

Not all scholars agree that climate mitigation and sustainability should be integrated with

adaptation and resilience. Redman posits that the fundamental assumptions between sustainability

and resilience differ and can even contradict each other. He notes that the primary objective of a

sustainability scientist is to identify specific, sustainable outcomes for a system and possible

pathways to achieve these conditions, whereas a resilience scientist focuses on building a system’s

19
adaptive capacity to favorably respond to shocks and stresses without predetermining or seeking

to control the specific outcome of the actions. Redman argues that the tension between outcome-

based sustainability and process-based resilience approaches can create conflicts. As such, he

suggests careful assessment by planners and decision-makers to determine whether a distinct or

integrated approach is more beneficial (Redman, 2014).

While differences in approaches to mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience make

integration challenging, potential benefits such as cost efficiencies, added value, reduced

unintended consequences, and improvements to quality of life make it important to determine

viability. Moreover, while Redman’s outcomes vs. process dichotomy between sustainability and

resilience is applicable at a conceptual level or larger scale, both outcome and process

paradigms are already intrinsic to building design and construction.

2.4 Neighbourhood, Infrastructure and Multi-Scalar Considerations

While municipalities and buildings remain logical scales at which to implement

mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience , there are many advantages to carrying out

initiatives at the neighbourhood scale. Engel-Yan et al. stress that incorporating sustainability

principles in neighbourhood design is important because many of the problems encountered at the

city scale are due to cumulative consequences of poor planning at the neighbourhood level

(Engel-Yan et al., 2005). Furthermore, Palermo et al. maintain that while buildings have been an

efficient scale at which to implement mitigation strategies, the wider neighbourhood context of

land use, transportation and infrastructure must be considered in order to understand how to

effectively mitigate GHG emissions from neighbourhoods (Palermo et al., 2018). Neighbourhoods

also present a viable scale for district energy systems, which can both bolster energy efficiency,

resilience (Yan et al., 2018), and support a transition to renewable energy in urban areas

20
(Bagheri et al., 2019). Sustainable neighbourhoods have been developed globally using

EcoDistrict, LEED® ND, One-Planet Communities, and other similar frameworks (Holden, Li, &

Molina, 2015).

While neighbourhood scale adaptation and resilience initiatives are still nascent, Kwok et al. note

that local communities are seen as the frontline in preparing for and dealing with the aftermath of

disasters, with informal governance through neighbourhood-based organisations and social

networks demonstrating effectiveness in past disasters (Kwok et al., 2018). This is echoed by Uda

and Kennedy, who emphasize that the neighbourhood scale is the suitable scale at which to form

a sense of community, and where some adaptation solutions are most appropriately implemented

(Uda & Kennedy, 2015). However, implementing adaptation at the neighbourhood scale can be

challenging due to lack of formal governance, policies that are dictated by city or regional levels,

(Kwok et al., 2018) and porous boundaries with residents moving frequently between

neighbourhoods for work and leisure activities (Berkes & Ross, 2013 as cited in Kontokosta &

Malik, 2018).

A key challenge to implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies is multi-scalar coordination.

Kwok at al. emphasize that neighbourhood-based resilience assessments need to consider

potential cascading effects that are beyond the control of neighbourhoods and advocate for

multi-scalar assessment that links the effects of resilience initiatives at multiple societal levels while

incorporating the values and needs of neighbourhood stakeholders (Kwok et al., 2018). However,

Keenan notes that crossing scales often amplifies complexities and highlights tensions between a

diversity of actors and interests (Keenan, 2014). This is reinforced by Landauer et al., who

examined how different scales drive interactions of adaptation and mitigation in cities and found

that in particular, comparing the interactions between the jurisdictional to management (or

21
implementation) scales and institutional (or regulatory) to management scales in municipal

governments revealed trade-offs and conflicts between adaptation and mitigation (Landauer,

Juhola, & Klein, 2019).

For both buildings and neighbourhoods, scalar issues are perhaps most explicit with regards to

infrastructure, where Kurth et al. note that restorability of key infrastructure functions is as

important, if not more so, as reparability of physical components (Kurth et al., 2019). Engel-Yan

et al. highlight that the performance of local infrastructure systems is influenced by interactions

with the greater urban region and with other infrastructure systems, and map out examples of

these multi-scalar urban infrastructure interactions, noting that achieving neighbourhood

sustainability objectives is difficult without regional infrastructure systems that support the same

goals (Engel-Yan et al., 2005).

Many sustainability and green building frameworks incorporate multiple scales, though with very

limited or explicit multi-scalar assessment. LEED® for Neighborhood Development prerequisites

and credits are organized into location, neighbourhood, building and infrastructure scales (U.S.

Green Building Council, 2016b), and several green building frameworks also consider location

and neighbourhood factors (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015a; International Living Future

Institute, 2014; U.S. Green Building Council, 2018a, 2019). Here, a few multi-scalar interactions

are implicitly addressed by allocating additional points or reducing requirements for projects that

for example, are located in urban areas or have avoided development on greenfield sites. It

should be noted that while most actions in these frameworks pertain to the project site and

building scale, they include requirements that have impacts on multiple scales, ranging from

building occupants to the global atmosphere (Retzlaff, 2008).

22
Frameworks that incorporate adaptation and resilience are typically more explicit in considering

multi-scalar interactions, to varying degrees. The ENVISION Sustainable Infrastructure Framework

includes credits that emphasize understanding and integrating individual infrastructure projects

into system and community scales (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2018). The Community

Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems notes the importance of assessing

building and infrastructure system dependencies to minimize impacts (National Institute for

Standards and Technology, 2016). The RELi rating system includes recommendations to consider

the disruption of essential services, project and community infrastructure integration, nested

systems, and planning for long term adaptability at multiple scales (U.S. Green Building Council,

2018b).

Based on the importance of neighbourhoods for effective implementation of mitigation and

adaptation, the critical role of infrastructure, and the development of solutions at the most

appropriate scale, an integrated building adaptation–mitigation assessment framework should

attempt to consider multi-scalar interactions in spite of the associated challenges.

2.5 Interactions between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

The IPCC’s 4th Assessment report (AR4) introduced four types of interactions between mitigation

and adaptation: adaptation actions that have consequences for mitigation, mitigation actions that

have consequences for adaptation, decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between

adaptation and mitigation, and processes that have consequences for both adaptation and

mitigation. Here, trade-offs are defined as the balancing of adaptation and mitigation initiatives

when it is not possible to carry out both activities fully at the same time, and synergies as the

interaction of adaptation and mitigation so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of

their effects if implemented separately. Other relevant interactions include substitutability, or the

23
extent to which an agent can replace adaptation by mitigation, or vice versa, to produce an

outcome of equal value; and complementarity, whereby the outcome of one supplements or

depends upon the outcome of the other. Additional terms used by Taylor et al. include co-benefits,

which is used interchangeably with synergies, and adverse side effects. (Taylor, Downing, Hassan,

Denton, & Downing, 2007). However, Duguma et al. differentiate between synergy and

complementarity (or co-benefits), arguing that complementarity between adaptation and

mitigation is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing synergy (Duguma, Minang, &

Van Noordwijk, 2014). Though not necessarily related to climate mitigation, maladaptation is

another relevant term, defined by Magnan as reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-

term vulnerability or increasing the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups over

any time horizon (Magnan, 2014).

There are a growing number of adaptation–mitigation interaction examples and case studies. At

the national and regional scales, Spencer et al. investigate co-benefits and synergies in forestry

conservation, mangrove restoration, water management and soil conservation case study projects

(Spencer et al., 2017). At the urban scale, Hamin & Gurran focus on interactions related to land

use planning, noting key factors such as location of development, density, diversity of use, urban

design elements, destination accessibility and distance to transit (Hamin & Gurran, 2009). McEvoy

et al. discuss the role of density and urban form, where more compact settlements may reduce

energy demand and transport emissions, but increase the urban heat island effect and

stormwater-related flooding (Mcevoy, Lindley, & Handley Obe, 2006). Density trade-offs extend

to other hazards in Chang et al.’s comparison of three development density scenarios with respect

to earthquake and coastal flood hazards, which concludes that the most compact scenario would

exacerbate disaster impacts (Chang et al., 2018). Demuzere et al. investigate the mitigation,

24
adaptation, sustainability and health benefits of green infrastructure solutions, as well as potential

trade-offs such as vegetation inhibiting winter passive heating (Demuzere et al., 2014).

In addition to interactions related to site and landscape design, investigations of adaptation–

mitigation interactions at the building and infrastructure scales typically fall under the scope of

operational energy use and GHG emissions, renewable energy production, or embodied GHG

emissions. Regarding energy and GHG emissions, Ortiz et. al anticipate substantial end-of-

century increases in peak cooling energy demand in New York City (Ortiz, González, & Lin,

2018), while Davis and Gertler project a significant growth in Mexico’s residential electricity

consumption due to increased need for cooling by the end of the century (Davis & Gertler, 2015).

Bartos et al. model the impacts of rising temperatures on peak electricity demand and

transmission capacity, noting that climate change may adversely affect electricity supply by

reducing generation and transmission capacity while simultaneously increasing electricity demand

(Bartos et al., 2016).

Several studies have investigated the relationship of renewable energy production and

distribution to system vulnerability and resilience (Hussain, Bui, & Kim, 2019; Mutani & Todeschi,

2018; Sample, Duncan, Ferguson, & Cooksley, 2015). Brown et al. assessed 24 studies proposing

100% renewable electricity systems and concluded that none provided convincing evidence that

they met the feasibility criteria for reliability, including demand reliability with resilience to

extreme climate events (Brown et al., 2018). Hills et al. studied off-grid solar electricity systems in

two Fiji sites and determined some resilience benefits, but noted increased fossil-fuel based

energy use from backup generators (Hills, Μichalena, & Chalvatzis, 2018).

With respect to interactions associated with embodied carbon, Bocchini et al. use lifecycle

assessment (LCA) to compare total primary energy of materials and construction, global warming
25
potential, lifecycle costs, and impact costs of two bridge design options with respect to an

earthquake hazard (Bocchini et al., 2014). Klotz et al. use a similar approach, coining the term

“hazard life cycle assessment” (H-LCA), by translating the economic impacts of catastrophe

modelling to environmental burdens (Klotz et al., 2014 as citied in Phillips et al., 2017). Matthews

et al. also use integrated LCA to compare two design options for a house vulnerable to coastal

flooding, incorporating the embodied carbon emissions associated with hazard-related repairs in

addition to those from the initial construction stage (Matthews, Friedland, & Orooji, 2016).

The growing body of knowledge on specific adaptation–mitigation interactions can help inform

how an integrated building adaptation–mitigation assessment framework might be organized

and which parameters are relevant to consider. The framework can also provide an overarching

structure to help catalogue these more detailed investigations and point to opportunities for

further exploration.

2.6 Assessment Frameworks

2.6.1 Mitigation, Green Building and Sustainability Frameworks

Mitigation, green building and sustainability frameworks have evolved and proliferated since the

launch of the Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM®) in

1990 and of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) rating system in 1998

(Bocchini et al., 2014). Frameworks can generally be categorized as building standards, codes

and regulations, building rating and certification systems, or building product certifications

(Vierra, 2019). Mitigation and green building frameworks primarily emphasize environmental

and human health and comfort considerations, whereas sustainability frameworks can also include

social, cultural and economic factors (Cole, 2012).

26
Mitigation frameworks focus on a single-attribute, GHG emissions or energy, whereas green

building and sustainability frameworks are typically multi-attribute (Vierra, 2019) and may

include categories such as transportation, water use, materials, land use, pollution, indoor

environmental quality (Doan et al., 2017), design process, social benefits and costs, and

employment (Cole, 2012). Whether mandated or voluntary, these frameworks are typically

based on achieving specific prescriptive measures, performance criteria or outcomes (Vierra,

2019). The majority of certification frameworks are structured per a checklist-based approach,

with a combination of mandatory and optional elements that are weighted by point values

according to the subjective environmental priorities established by the frameworks’ developers

(Retzlaff, 2008).

A few regenerative design frameworks are also emerging that may be helpful for integrating

mitigation and adaptation at the building scale. These emphasize systems thinking, whereby the

component parts of a system can be understood in the context of relationships with each other,

rather than in isolation. Tools such as REGEN, Eco-BalanceTM, and Living Environments in Natural,

Social and Economic Systems (LENSES) are collaborative and process-based, with a focus on

interconnections, systems’ flows and lifecycle balancing (Cole, 2012).

2.6.2 Adaptation and Resilience Frameworks

Frameworks for climate adaptation and resilience have typically been developed separately

from mitigation and sustainability frameworks (Matthews et al., 2014; Phillips et al., 2017).

Because shocks and stresses are location dependent, Uda & Kennedy emphasize that it is more

appropriate to have a resilience process rather than a checklist of specific actions, which is

characteristic of green building rating systems (Uda & Kennedy, 2018). Cimellaro et al. note that

adaptation and resilience goals are less straightforward, often relying on processes rather than

27
specific targets (Cimellaro et al., 2016). The challenge of adaptation assessment is also

exacerbated by the large degree of uncertainty involved due to the variability of climate

projections and forecasts regarding the location, time and intensity of various hazards (Watkiss et

al., 2015).

Some pertinent adaptation and resilience frameworks at the regional and urban scales can inform

both indicators and processes for neighbourhood and building scale frameworks. Cutter et al.’s

Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) is a comprehensive regional resilience

assessment metric that includes social, economic, housing and infrastructure, institutional, community

and environmental indicators (Cutter, Ash, & Emrich, 2014). Meerow and Newell establish a three-

phrase process that involves first establishing a shared definition of urban resilience as a

boundary object and delineating the urban system’s linkages and flows; then elaborating

questions on the who, what, when, where, and why of urban resilience; and finally testing the

process in empirical contexts (Meerow & Newell, 2016). Sharifi and Yamagata synthesize the

major principles of urban resilience and develop a series of criteria that can be incorporated into

an urban resilience framework. These cover infrastructure, security, environment, economy, social

and demographic, and institutional categories (Sharifi & Yamagata, 2014). The City Resilience

Framework is defined by four dimensions: Health and Wellbeing, Economy and Society,

Infrastructure and Environment, and Leadership & Strategy. These are subdivided into twelve

goals and 52 indicators, and evaluated according to seven resilience qualities (ARUP & The

Rockefeller Foundation, 2016; Collier et al., 2014).

Per Kontokosta and Malik’s review, most of the adaptation frameworks and conceptual models at

the municipal scale lack the data at the spatial granularity needed to represent urban

neighbourhoods. Those that do are specific to certain types of communities and are less

28
generalizable (Kontokosta & Malik, 2018). However, there are also a limited number of

neighbourhood scale resilience frameworks. Some notable work includes Kwok et al.’s

development of resilience parameters based on neighbourhood stakeholder focus groups in

Wellington, NZ and San Francisco, USA (Kwok et al., 2018). These parameters include individual,

social, economic, governance and infrastructure factors. Uda & Kennedy’s engineering-focused

framework is based on meeting essential needs in a community. It helps identify the system(s) that

normally satisfy a specific essential need and uses a risk-based assessment to develop alternative

strategies to meet the identified need should the system(s) fail (Uda & Kennedy, 2015).

Kontokosta and Malik’s Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index (REDI) is particularly

relevant, and benchmarks neighbourhood resilience by developing a unified, multi-factor index of

local and regional resilience capacity. This index integrates physical, natural, economic and social

systems, and is operationalized through the collection and analysis of existing urban data from

U.S. Census tracts, which are also used to define the urban neighbourhoods’ boundaries

(Kontokosta & Malik, 2018). Cimellaro et al.’s PEOPLES iterative model is useful for mapping out

a process for evaluating community resilience to a specific hazard by identifying

interdependencies between critical infrastructures and sociotechnical networks, modeling various

response scenarios to a hazard, and identifying gaps that can help determine potential resilience

actions (Cimellaro et al., 2016).

Neighbourhood scale resilience frameworks and studies are also being advanced by

governments. The City of Vancouver’s Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit is helpful as a model for

providing step-by-step guidance to lay community members on forming a resilience team,

conducting an assessment, identifying neighbourhood assets, mapping resilience, setting goals,

and organizing emergency preparedness (City of Vancouver, 2019d). Though focused

specifically on flood risk, New York City’s Resilient Neighbourhoods initiative provides a useful
29
narrative and graphic-based prototype for a detailed neighbourhood resilience assessment. It

includes vulnerability and risk profiling that incorporates neighbourhood history, land use,

infrastructure, economic, regulatory, and social factors, with a particular focus on hazard

mitigation strategies for representative existing building types (Weisbrod, 2016).

At the building and infrastructure scales, much of the work that has taken place has been isolated

to the first half of the definition of resilience (plan/prepare and absorb), representing activities

generally assigned to risk management, which has been the dominant paradigm in planning,

management and vulnerability assessment of critical infrastructures (Kurth et al., 2019).

Several building and infrastructure-scale resilience tools are useful references for the

development of an integrated building adaptation and mitigation assessment framework. The

PIEVC Protocol is a five-step process for analyzing the engineering vulnerability of an

infrastructure system or building to current and future climate hazards. The steps include project

introduction, project definition, data collection about the infrastructure components and climate

considerations, risk assessment where an evaluation methodology and scoring system are outlined,

and recommendations (Engineers Canada, 2016). The U.S.-based Threat/Hazard Assessment

Model (THAM) and toolkit provides a similar framework for a range of both climate and non-

climate threats and hazards, with specific thresholds established based on existing metrics and

available government data to help determine the level of threat for each hazard (Assistant

Secretary for Preparedness and Response, n.d.). New York City’s Climate Resiliency Design

Guidelines provide guidance on linking climate change projections to the lifespan of various

building types and components, enabling a more cost-effective and low impact design approach

(NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019).

30
Keenan argues that unlike most engineering-based resilience frameworks developed for this

scale, adaptation of buildings should be evaluated in the domain of the social sciences, and

proposes a relevant model that acknowledges the duality of a building’s material form and the

social construction of its design, use, and management (Keenan, 2014). Other frameworks have

also attempted to integrate technical parameters with social, economic and other considerations.

The six step process outlined in the Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and

Infrastructure links social dimensions to built environment factors, and provides practical examples

of performance goals for buildings and infrastructure within the context of a community’s social

and economic needs (National Institute for Standards and Technology, 2016). The Australian

Resilience Measurement Scheme for Buildings (ARMS) incorporates physical, infrastructure,

environmental, economic-social, political-regulatory, and organizational dimensions. Tailored to

commercial building owners, it is notable for linking buildings to infrastructure, community and

governance scales, and has several useful parameters for assessing existing buildings and

organizations (Burroughs, 2017).

With increasing risks of inestimable probability or the manifestation of multiple risks all at once,

Park et al. note that many feel traditional risk management is no longer sufficient and that a new

holistic systems way of thinking is required (Park et al., 2013 as cited in Uda & Kennedy, 2018).

Uncertainly over how much to adapt to climate change based on how much we are anticipated to

mitigate it has led to a shift away from optimized responses toward iterative risk frameworks and

decision-making under uncertainty (Watkiss et al., 2015).

2.6.3 Integrated Mitigation and Adaptation Frameworks

There is a substantial body of literature examining the difficulty of both comparing adaptation

and mitigation strategies and evaluating them together under a single framework. Early

31
academic attention focused primarily on governance frameworks for overcoming this dichotomy

rather than identifying and investigating adaptation–mitigation interactions in detail (Tol, 2005).

Any analyses of adaptation–mitigation interactions was aimed at broadly determining the right

policy mix of adaptation and mitigation actions (McKibbin & Wilcoxen, 2004), typically at larger

scales (Watkiss et al., 2015).

As the research evolved, integrated adaptation–mitigation frameworks and models have been

developed for the city scale (Walsh et al., 2013; Solecki et al., 2015). Methods used include

integrated assessment models (IAMs), which incorporate multiple complex factors such as urban

demographics, economics, land use, climate impacts, and GHG emissions within a coherent

assessment framework (Walsh et al., 2011). Viguié and Hallegatte developed a quantitative

evaluation model for adaptation–mitigation trade-offs and synergies using a multicriteria analysis

across five policy goals to compare three urban policies in Paris: a greenbelt policy, a zoning

policy to reduce flood risk, and a transportation subsidy (Viguié & Hallegatte, 2012). While

beneficial for thinking through the various factors affecting mitigation and adaptation, these

types of frameworks remain highly conceptual, Walsh et al. noting that their complexity as

compared to local government skills being a major barrier to incorporating the models into

routine decision-making. However, they add that the IAMs start the process of developing a

collective understanding amongst planners of maximizing synergies and minimizing conflicts

between adaptation and mitigation (Walsh et al., 2013).

At the building and neighbourhood scales, very few integrated frameworks currently exist.

Hrabovszky-Horváth et al. developed an evaluative methodology based on existing building

typologies to estimate the climate mitigation potential and vulnerability of residential buildings to

wind storms (Hrabovszky-Horváth, Pálvölgyi, Csoknyai, & Talamon, 2013). However, the only link

32
between mitigation measures and hazard vulnerability factors were the buildings used for the

study. C40 developed the Adaptation and Mitigation Interaction Assessment (AMIA) Excel-based

tool, where users can select from a database of adaptation and mitigation strategies and case

studies at multiple scales to identify potential interactions (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,

2018). Bocchini et al.’s LCA-based assessment method compares the energy efficiency/GHG

emissions and resilience of infrastructure options using the example of bridge design and

earthquake hazards (Bocchini et al., 2014). Similarly, Matthews et al. generated an integrated

sustainability and resilience assessment model for coastal, single-family residential building

designs exposed to coastal flood hazards, using an LCA-based method that considers both GHG

emissions from initial construction materials and from flood-induced repairs, though excluding

operational emissions. These studies highlight the importance of methods for assessing embodied

GHG emissions in adaptation–mitigation interactions, as well as the GHG emissions associated

with post-hazard repairs or replacement (Matthews et al., 2016).

Although there are limited integrated frameworks at the building scale, existing sustainability

assessment systems have been analyzed to determine their compatibility with adaptation. The

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identified interactions between residential

green building strategies outlined in the International Green Construction Code and four natural

hazards (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010). Matthews et al. investigated the

incorporation of resilience-related measures in eleven sustainability assessment frameworks (SAFs)

and determined that resilience is not strongly or systematically integrated, with limited coverage

of hazards and the best case framework having 18% of measures addressing resilience

(Matthews et al., 2014). Uda and Kennedy’s study of LEED® for Neighbourhood Development

with respect to 24 future shocks and stresses determined that sustainable neighbourhoods have

many qualities that contribute to resilience, and minimal conflicts with it, but do not offer
33
comprehensive or optimal resilience (Uda & Kennedy, 2018). Champagne and Atkas compared

the requirements for LEED® v4 Building Design and Construction to the criteria linked to resilient

design principles and determined that there were significant gaps where LEED® v4 needed to be

revised to better address resilience (Champagne & Aktas, 2016). Phillips et al. adopted the

inverse approach, evaluating existing resilience frameworks with respect to environmental

sustainability. They found that just 40% of resilience strategies were conducive to sustainable

design, while 44% were conditional and 16% negatively impacted it (Phillips et al., 2017).

Roostaie et al. stress that an integrated framework must be tailored and customized to fit the

case-by-case nature of projects, based upon the location, climate, and type of natural hazards to

which the area is vulnerable. They note that one cannot simply delve into the sustainability

assessment frameworks to search for indicators of resilience, because those assessment systems

are not primarily designed to include resilience, making development of new systems or a

thorough refinement of current frameworks seem inevitable (Roostaie et al., 2019).

A review of the literature and of existing frameworks confirm the need for a comprehensive

building-scale adaptation–mitigation framework. The plethora of mitigation, green building and

sustainability metrics coupled with the growing number of adaptation and resilience frameworks

can provide significant guidance on the development of an integrated approach.

2.7 Successful Implementation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in Buildings

Integrated implementation of mitigation and adaptation in the built environment is at a

pioneering stage, with few built examples. Looking to successful policies and project delivery

practices on projects with green building, sustainability and mitigation goals; as well as

acknowledging causes of failures, can serve as a point of departure for creating an effective

integrated adaptation–mitigation process.

34
Governance and policies are important drivers for successful implementation of green buildings.

Han’s investigation of Singapore’s highly effective green building policy implementation approach

notes several reasons for success, including top-down governance, empowerment of the central

planning agency and building construction authority, and legal mandates (Han, 2019). Adabre

and Chan’s international study on critical success factors (CSFs) in sustainable affordable housing

revealed 13 key factors for sustainable affordable housing policy, of which the top six included

political will, commitment to affordable housing, and formulation of sound housing policies

(Adabre & Chan, 2019). Neuberger highlights that effective implementation of green building

policies must also include adequate staffing and training of policy enforcement staff, and

additional support services for design teams and contractors (Neuberger, 2018).

Financial and regulatory mechanisms are also noted to have significant impacts on the success of

sustainable projects. These include access to low interest housing loans for developers (Adabre &

Chan, 2019), financial incentives and support (Han, 2019), property tax reduction, and

expedited permits (Berawi, Basten, Latief, & Crévits, 2020). Iterative lifecycle cost analysis

(LCCA) and return on investment (ROI) calculations were also cited as important financial tools to

be used during design and construction (Gunhan, 2019).

Knowledge and leadership were frequently cited success factors for achieving sustainable

building goals. Owner commitment to sustainability goals (Korkmaz et al., 2010b as cited in

Raouf & Al-Ghamdi, 2019) and support from senior management were noted to be essential

drivers of project success (Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018). In addition, the level of knowledge of

building developers and owners, and the availability of technical assistance can impact the ability

to achieve sustainable design goals (Berawi et al., 2020). The degree of green building

education, skills and capacity building of industry professionals were also perceived as significant

35
reasons for success or failure (Han, 2019; Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018), as were information

flow and knowledge management strategies (Hui Liu, Rahmawati, & Amila Wan Abdullah

Zawawi, 2019).

Successful green building outcomes can be defined by the degree to which a project meets

specific performance metrics such as sustainability goals (Li, Song, Sang, Chen, & Liu, 2019),

budget, schedule, quality, organizational relationships, stakeholder satisfaction, and public

recognition (Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018). The most frequently mentioned factors for successful

green building outcomes are project team integration, communication and collaboration. Li et al.’s

comprehensive review of publications examining critical success factors (CSF) for green buildings

identified communication and cooperation between project participants as the highest ranked CSF

(Li et al., 2019). These echo many of the findings in Venkataraman and Cheng’s survey of green

building experts which found that effective collaboration, early involvement, and commitment of

all participants were the three major success factors for managing green building projects

(Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018).

In several studies, better construction project delivery performance is correlated with higher

project team integration and greater team cohesion. Methods discussed for providing a more

integrated approach to project delivery include team building activities, design charrettes,

community engagement, building information modeling (BIM) (Raouf & Al-Ghamdi, 2019;

Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018) and engagement of all parties in early design phases (Darko &

Chan, 2017; Franz, Leicht, Molenaar, & Messner, 2017; Gunhan, 2019).

Franz et al. note that improved team integration corresponded with project delivery methods that

involved the builder early in the design process, and projects with open-book contract terms and

qualification-based selection had a positive and direct influence on group cohesion. Conversely,
36
delivery methods with late involvement of the builders, strictly price-based selection, and closed-

book, lump-sum contracts produced both the least integrated and least cohesive teams (Franz et

al., 2017). Guhan’s study on sustainable building project practices reveals that the project

delivery method selected can have a significant impact on the degree of integration. His survey

of green building contractors revealed that the majority found the Design Build delivery model to

be the most effective for ensuring early participation of the contractor, enabling team integration

and collaboration, optimizing project costs, and meeting sustainability goals (Gunhan, 2019).

Ebrahimi notes that projects delivered through more collaborative project delivery methods

generally outperform those using less collaborative ones, though more complex project delivery

methods such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) can involve implementation challenges

(Ebrahimi, 2018).

Lessons from implementation of green and sustainable building projects illustrate that frameworks

and their associated tools are important for developing a roadmap, setting goals, identifying

potential strategies and tracking progress. However, they need to be complemented by strong

leadership, policies and financial incentives, adequate knowledge and expertise, and methods to

ensure earlier and more robust project team integration.

2.8 Development of an Integrated Building Adaptation–Mitigation Assessment Framework

The literature reveals the need for a building-scale integrated climate adaptation–mitigation

assessment framework. While some argue that integrating adaptation and mitigation is

unnecessary or challenging, the growing impacts of climate change and demands on limited

available resources in both domains make it a worthwhile endeavour. Though there are significant

differences in approaches between adaptation and mitigation, the context of a building project,

37
which is inherently both process-oriented and outcome-based, can serve as a suitable scale for

testing an integrated framework.

An integrated building adaptation–mitigation framework can draw from and build upon the

structure and content of a wide range of existing resources in both domains. Per Roostaie et al., it

should be customizable to the unique context of a project (Roostaie et al., 2019), and include both

technical and social considerations (Keenan, 2014). In addition, it is important that it incorporate

multi-scalar interactions, at minimum with respect to infrastructure and neighbourhoods. Perhaps

most essential is that the framework be designed to facilitate project team integration and

collaboration between a range of stakeholders, to help ensure that goals are aligned, and

strategies are effectively implemented.

38
Chapter 3: Methods

3.1 Research Model

The Adaptive Mitigation project was carried out using a collaborative model between: the

research partner, The University of British Columbia, who carried out the research and framework

development; the solution-seeking partner, the British Columbia Housing Management Commission

provincial crown agency (BC Housing), who provided project case studies, stakeholder contacts,

and iterative feedback; and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), who provided

funding and project management. The objective of this research approach was the active

knowledge exchange and translation of the research to facilitate more direct contributions to

climate change adaptation and mitigation (Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, 2020). The

research and resultant framework contributes to BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and

Resilience (MBAR) initiative (BC Housing, 2019).

3.2 Research Context

The research focuses on the integration of adaptation and mitigation initiatives for urban multi-

unit housing in the contexts of British Columbia and New York City. These regions have been

selected because of their lack of affordable housing (City of New York, n.d.; Gurstein, LaRocque,

& MacDonald, 2018), because of the research team’s experience in these markets, and because

they are leading-edge jurisdictions for climate policy in North America (CDP, 2019).

3.3 Research Design

In order to answer the research questions and to create a framework that could be effectively

applied by industry professionals, an iterative research process that used multiple qualitative

methods was designed. This involved eliciting feedback from industry stakeholders at various

stages of the framework’s evolution and incorporating it into subsequent phases of development.

39
This process enabled triangulation of findings, refinement of the framework tools, and testing of

the framework’s application.

The research design was organized into three phases as illustrated in Figure 3.1:

Figure 3.1 Diagram of the Research Process

Phase One involved document analysis of relevant academic and grey literature, as well as semi-

structured interviews with industry experts. This was carried out to derive the initial structure and

parameters of the Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework.

In order for the framework to build upon existing efforts, Phase One also helped establish the

current context of climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives within the two regions investigated,

and the degree to which mitigation and adaptation policies and practices were integrated.

Details pertaining to the document analysis and interview methods are outlined in Sections 3.5

and 3.6.

In Phase Two, input on the initial IBAMA framework structure and parameters was solicited though

a day-long stakeholder workshop that included case study exercises. BC Housing staff and select

consultants provided additional feedback in a separate meeting following the workshop. This

informed the development of a comprehensive draft of the framework and associated tools.
40
In Phase Three, the draft framework and tools were presented to industry stakeholders, who were

then sent a survey with attached framework documents to provide more detailed comments.

Further input was provided by key BC Housing stakeholders in a virtual workshop. This feedback

was used to edit and fine-tune the final version of the IBAMA documents (Appendices A and B).

3.4 Analysis Methods

Thematic analysis was employed for the document reviews, expert-interview results, stakeholder

workshop feedback and survey findings. This type of analysis is defined as a qualitative method

for identifying, analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting themes found within a data set

(Braun & Clarke, 2006). It is a highly flexible and useful approach for examining the perspectives

of different research participants, highlighting similarities and differences, and generating

unanticipated insights; as well as providing a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data

(Braun & Clarke, 2006; King, 2004; as cited in Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017).

3.5 Phase One – Document Analysis

Analysis was carried out on a selection of documents pertaining to climate change

mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience in the built environment, with a central focus

on documents relevant to the leading climate policy contexts of British Columbia and New York.

Documents included both academic literature and grey literature. In order to inform the

development of the IBAMA framework, the objectives of the analysis were:

1. To derive key parameters and overall structure for the framework.

2. To establish the context of current climate mitigation and adaptation goals and initiatives

for the built environment, and the hazards that they address.

3. To understand if and how current approaches to mitigation and adaptation for the built

environment are integrated.

41
Two distinct reviews were carried out: Document Analysis A and Document Analysis B. Document

Analysis A examined mainly academic literature to identify a structure and potential parameters

for the IBAMA framework. Document Analysis B was carried out on grey literature to establish the

context of mitigation and adaptation goals and initiatives for the built environment, as well as

assess the degree of integration between the two approaches.

3.5.1 Selection of Documents

3.5.1.1 Document Analysis A

Primarily academic literature was selected specifically to help derive key parameters for the

IBAMA framework. A keyword search was carried out using the GreenFile, Web of Science,

Engineering Village and Google Scholar internet search engines. The key search terms used are

listed in Table 3.1. Variations included replacing “building*” with “urban” OR “neighborhood*”

OR “communit*”, and “framework*” with “tool*”.

Table 3.1 Key Search terms for Academic Literature on Mitigation & Adaptation Frameworks

Search Terms Keyword Inputs

Evaluation frameworks for “evaluation framework*” OR “assessment tool*” AND

buildings “building*”

Frameworks for sustainable “framework*” AND “building*” AND “green” OR

buildings “sustain*” OR “mitigat*” OR “environ*”

Frameworks for building “framework*” AND “building*”AND “adapt* OR

adaptation or resilience resilie*”

Frameworks for adaptation or “framework*” AND “adapt*” OR “resilien*” AND

resilience in multifamily residential “resident*” OR “multifamily” OR “multi-family” AND
buildings “building*” OR “structure” OR “project*” AND
“climat*”

42
Abstracts were then reviewed to determine if the publications might be relevant to the goal of

establishing parameters for the IBAMA framework. Those deemed pertinent were organized

according to whether they related to climate mitigation, adaptation or both, as well as their

applicable scale (urban, neighborhood, building, or multiple scales/other). Some additional

publications were added by reviewing the bibliographies of the initial papers. A limited number

of grey literature documents were also added to supplement information on community/

neighborhood/infrastructure scale adaptation frameworks, for which there is scarce academic

literature. In total, 34 academic papers and grey literature documents were reviewed to identify

potential IBAMA parameters. See Appendix C for a list of papers and documents reviewed.

3.5.1.2 Document Analysis B

Grey literature for Document Analysis B was selected to help establish the climate mitigation and

adaptation contexts in the building industry and assess the degree of interaction between the two

approaches. Documents represent the contexts of British Columbia and New York City, with

supporting documents from other locations where relevant. These documents include reports on

climate projections, hazards and risks, planning documents, and official legislation. In addition, a

range of widely recognized mitigation and adaptation reference materials used by the North

American building design and construction industry were selected for review. They consist of

rating systems, guidelines, technical standards, relevant industry reports and websites. Documents

were identified by a variety of means, including British Columbia, Vancouver, and New York City

government websites; BC Housing’s website; citations from select academic papers; references

from subject matter experts interviewed; and documents known to the researcher through

professional practice.

43
Documents were compiled and organized by type, focus (mitigation, adaptation, both, other), and

location. 70 documents were analyzed for Document Analysis B. See Table 3.2 for a breakdown

of documents by type. A detailed list of documents reviewed can be found in Appendix D.

Table 3.2 Classification of Grey Literature for Document Analysis B

Type Focus Location

Mitigation Adaptation M+A/ BC NYC Other/

Other Various
Climate Projections/
Hazards/ Risks & 14 2 12 4
Vulnerabilities 3
2F

Government Action Plans 15 6 3 19 3 2

Policy & Legislation 6 4 2
Metrics/Rating Systems 6 4 4 14
Guidelines 1 6 2 2 7
Reports 7 4 1 9 1

3.5.1.3 Supplementary Reference Documents

In selecting relevant grey literature for Document Analysis B, supplementary documents, websites

and tools were also identified. These were referenced in the IBAMA framework tools developed

during Phases Two and Three of the research process. These supplementary documents fall

predominantly under the categories of technical guidelines and other resources. See Table 3.3 for

a breakdown of documents by type. See Appendix E for the complete list of documents.

3Information about climate projections, hazards, risks and vulnerabilities was found in sections of multiple categories of documents
but was called out in a separate category. Therefore, some documents are counted twice in Table 3.2.
44
Table 3.3 Classification of Supplementary Reference Documents
Type Focus Location

Mitigation Adaptation M+A/ BC NYC Other/

Other Various
Climate Projections/
Hazards/ Risks & 5 1 4 2
Vulnerabilities
Codes, Policy & Legislation 2 4 2 2 6
Data 3 1 3 1
Metrics 1 1

Reports & Studies 1 3 3 1

Technical Guidelines 6 9 9 8 16

Other Resources 5 3 8 2 14

3.5.2 Coding and Analysis

Documents for analyses A & B were coded using NVivo 12 Pro qualitative data analysis software

(QSR International LLC, 2018). Coding and analysis were carried out iteratively. A coding

document with initial code categories, sub-categories and codes was created deductively, based

on the conceptual framework developed in the initial research proposal (Figure 3.2).

Potential IBAMA framework parameters identified in Document Analysis A prompted

modifications to some of the original categories and codes. These modified codes were

subsequently used in Document Analysis B and for coding and analysis of the semi-structured

expert interviews. During the document coding process, additional codes were derived inductively

as needed.

45
 Figure 3.2 Initial Conceptual Framework Used for the Research Process

In most cases, sections of text were assigned multiple codes from more than one code category.

This process and the software enabled a range of analysis options, for example, identifying which

strategies simultaneously addressed climate mitigation and adaptation goals, or aligning a type

of adaptation goal with a specific climate hazard.

Codes and code categories were reorganized and streamlined during the analysis process and

synthesis of findings. The resultant code categories and sub-categories are listed in Table 3.4. A

complete list of document analysis codes can be found in Appendix F.

46
Table 3.4 Code Categories and Sub-categories for Document Analysis B
Code Category Sub-Category

1_Climate Data
2_Climate Context 2a_Emissions and Energy Data
2b_Hazards
2c_Vulnerabilities & Risks
2d_Impacts
3_Goals 3a_Climate Mitigation Goals
3b_Adaptation & Resilience Goals
3c_Sustainability Goals
4_Context or Scale
5_Strategy Type
6_ Other Factors

3.5.3 Document Analysis Limitations

The documents selected attempt to capture the key building industry-related climate policies in

British Columbia and New York City, as well as the most frequently referenced climate mitigation

and adaptation documents in these regions. It is not an exhaustive review of all policies, rating

systems and other types of references. Many of the documents analyzed focus on projections,

recommendations or aspirations related to climate adaptation and mitigation, rather than

completed actions, results or outcomes. Since the analysis was primarily carried out in 2019,

documents published or revised in 2020 were typically not included.

While a coding framework was developed and reviewed with the research supervisor, it should

be noted that all coding and analysis were carried out by a single researcher, limiting the ability

to minimize bias in the analysis process. Triangulation with findings from the semi-structured expert

interviews attempts to address some of these limitations.

47
3.6 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interviews

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts involved in climate

mitigation/sustainability and/or adaptation/resilience initiatives in British Columbia or New York

City. Semi-structured interviews combine the flexibility of an unstructured, open-ended interview

with the directionality and agenda of the survey instrument (Schensul, Schensul, & LeCompte,

1999). This format was selected because it allowed for a balance between establishing a

consistent line of questioning for all interviewees with the flexibility for elaboration of pertinent

details and individual perspectives.

The objectives of the expert interviews were similar to those for the document analysis, enabling

triangulation of findings:

1. To help establish and validate the structure and parameters of the IBAMA framework.

2. To understand the state of mitigation and adaptation efforts in industry-leading contexts.

3. To understand if and how current approaches to mitigation and adaptation for the built

environment are integrated.

3.6.1 Selection of Interview Subjects

Adaptation processes benefit from integrating different knowledge domains and systems of

thinking (Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2006 as cited in Campos et al., 2016). As such,

interview subjects were selected to represent the diversity of expertise and complementarity of

perspectives involved in advancing mitigation and adaptation in the built environment.

Nine categories of experts were identified, with the goal of interviewing at least one expert in

each category. The categories established were Architects, Contractors, Community/Residents,

Emergency Managers, Engineers, Landscape/Planning/Urban Design, Owners/Developers, Policy,

and Sustainability/Adaptation Consultants. Experts were interviewed in seven of the nine

48
categories, with contractor and community/resident representatives not identified, a gap to be

addressed in future research.

A list of potential interviewees was developed based on well-known industry experts involved in

mitigation and/or adaptation for the built environment. This list was circulated amongst members

of the Adaptive Mitigation project team (PICS, BC Housing and UBC) to help identify additional

experts. Approximately 80 names were compiled across seven of the nine categories. A short list

of experts in New York City was defined based on the researcher’s knowledge of the industry in

that location. Similarly, Wilma Leung, Senior Manager of Technical Research and Education at BC

Housing identified a short list of experts to contact in British Columbia based on her industry

knowledge.

Table 3.5 Classification of Expert Interview Participants

Expertise British Columbia New York City

Architecture 1 1
Emergency Management 1 -
Engineering 2 2
Landscape/Planning/Urban Design 1 1
Owner/Developer (Building) 3 1
Owner/Developer (Neighborhood) - 2
Policy 2 2
Sustainability or Adaptation 2 1
Total 12 10

22 experts were contacted by email for interviews, and 21 responses were received. One expert

was unavailable and recommended a colleague, who participated in an interview. Another

expert included a second participant in their interview to better address both mitigation and

adaptation perspectives. In total, 10 experts were interviewed in New York City and 12 in British

49
Columbia. 21 interviews were conducted between July and October of 2019, with 12 interviews

occurring in person, and nine conducted by phone. A list of interviewees categorized by expertise

and location can be found in Table 3.5.

3.6.2 Interview Process

A semi-structured interview schedule (see Appendix G) was created to guide the interview

process. Nineteen open ended questions were designed to elicit responses to inform the interview

goals and development of the IBAMA framework. Questions were organized into four sections: an

introduction to establish each participant’s expertise in the research topic; climate mitigation

initiatives; climate adaptation initiatives; and the integration of mitigation and adaptation.

In addition to the consent form, this schedule was sent to each participant in advance of their

interview, explaining that initial questions would be selected in accordance with their area of

expertise. For example, if the interviewee was a climate adaptation expert, the adaptation

questions served as the initial focus of the interview, with mitigation questions discussed where

applicable. During the interview, based on responses to initial questions, follow up questions

emerged spontaneously to obtain further clarification or details. Interviews ranged between 30

and 90 minutes depending upon the questions discussed and the availability of the expert.

3.6.3 Transcription, Coding and Analysis

Interviews were recorded and transcribed using Otter.ai transcription software (Liang & Fu,

2018), then reviewed and corrected manually. Transcripts were redacted to remove potential

identifiers, then sent to the interviewees to confirm if they required any additional redaction or

modification. Although they were not attributed to specific individuals, quotes cited in the

interview findings section (Section 4.2) were also confirmed by email with the corresponding

interview subjects prior to inclusion.

50
Transcripts were coded using NVivo 12 Pro qualitative data analysis software (QSR International

LLC, 2018) to identify potential IBAMA framework parameters, mitigation and adaptation goals

and strategies, and other factors pertaining to the integration of mitigation and adaptation in the

built environment (See Table 3.4). Code categories and codes were similar to those used for the

document analysis process, with some modifications. Additional codes and one additional code

category, “Evaluation of Strategies”, were added during the interview coding process. A

complete list of interview analysis code categories and codes can be found in Appendix H.

Coding was analyzed to identify potential IBAMA framework parameters, the degree of

advancement of mitigation and adaptation efforts in both New York City and British Columbia,

and ways in which integration between mitigation and adaptation was being considered and

could be effectively implemented. The analysis also revealed key themes and trends, as well as

areas of consensus and disagreement about mitigation and adaptation in the built environment. In

addition, differences in perspective amongst the various professional categories and the two

regions were noted, to help inform how the IBAMA framework could be used by diverse

stakeholders and/or in different locations.

3.6.4 Interview Limitations

Although the selection of interview participants aimed to represent the diversity of building

industry expertise in two leading edge contexts, this limited the number of participants with the

same background, potentially obscuring differences of opinion amongst those in the same

profession or region. In addition, as indicated in Section 3.6.1, the perspectives of general

contractor and building resident participants are missing from the analysis.

There are several relevant reasons for investigating the leading-edge North American climate

policy contexts of British Columbia and New York City to inform development of the IBAMA
51
framework. However, the viewpoints of experts working in regions outside of North America, or

with less advanced climate policies would likely result in additional insights and potentially

different conclusions.

3.7 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop

The findings from the document analysis and expert interviews were used to create a general

structure and initial parameters for the Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment

(IBAMA) framework (see Section 4.3 for details). These were presented at a day-long industry

stakeholder workshop held in Vancouver in November 2019. The goals of the workshop were:

1. To present the research problem and initial analysis results to industry stakeholders;

2. To elicit feedback on the draft IBAMA structure and framework parameters;

3. To obtain input for further development of the IBAMA framework.

3.7.1 Workshop Format

A scenario workshop method (Campos et al., 2016) was developed to engage participants with

the draft framework parameters and provide feedback in the context of real-world projects.

Stakeholder workshops are a means of providing the inclusive participatory processes and

capacity building approaches recommended for planning climate change policies (Amaru &

Chhetri, 2013).

The first portion of the workshop consisted of a presentation summarizing the research problem

and associated literature review, results of the document analysis, and expert interview findings.

The draft IBAMA framework parameters were then introduced along with an exercise that tested

their application using BC Housing case study projects. Participants provided feedback on the

framework structure, parameters and process via workshop facilitators, who were given a training

session and case study materials in advance of the workshop.

52
3.7.2 Workshop Participants

The workshop presentation was attended by approximately 40 industry experts invited by BC

Housing, including four or five attendees joining remotely. 37 experts participated in the case

study exercise. A broad range of industry expertise was represented, which included architects,

engineers, planners, policy analysts, government representatives, development representatives,

BC Housing staff, landscape architects, environmental health scientists, and PICS staff.

3.7.3 Case Study Exercise

The exercise was designed to test the draft IBAMA framework process and parameters using a

hypothetical redesign exercise of BC Housing projects. Participants were divided into six groups

that were organized to have a diversity of professional expertise to ensure that a variety of skills

and perspectives were represented. Each table was assigned a facilitator to lead the exercise.

Table 3.6 Workshop Case Study Characteristics and Hazards

Location Context Community Scale Demographics Hypothetical
Hazards
Explored

West Vancouver, Urban Affluent Four-Five Independent Overland

BC w/robust storeys/ Seniors flooding;
adjacent 140 units Seasonal water
services shortage
Colwood, BC Suburban Mid-income; Six Mixed: Heat Waves;
average storeys/ Families, Poor Air
services; 102 units Seniors, Quality
moderate Disabled
walkability Residents
Smithers, BC Village/ Mid-income; Three Intellectually Wildfires;
Rural low walkability; storeys/ Disabled Winter Power
limited services 19 units Residents, Outage with
Seniors Ice Storm

Groups were each assigned a recently designed or built BC Housing case study project, as well as

a climate hazard deemed to be of medium to high risk in British Columbia by the year 2050 (BC

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2019). In total, six climate hazards were
53
explored using three BC Housing case studies. Case studies were selected to represent different

contexts, project scales, typologies and resident demographics. A summary of case study

characteristics and assigned hazards is listed in Table 3.6.

The exercise consisted of a four-step process organized according to the draft framework

categories illustrated in Figure 3.3. The task involved a hypothetical redesign of the assigned case

study to respond to a future climate hazard and to meet ambitious climate mitigation goals.

Participants were provided with a copy of their team’s case study exercise. Each team was also

provided with case study drawings and neighborhood images, drawing and writing materials, as

well as a BC Housing document listing potential adaptation strategies for their assigned hazard.

Figure 3.3 Draft Framework Categories and Interactions

54
First, teams reviewed information about the project case study, a 2050 climate change scenario,

the assigned climate hazard, and a hypothetical neighbourhood resilience evaluation (IBAMA

categories 1-4). They then identified neighborhood assets and risks, as well as project risks with

respect to the climate hazard (IBAMA categories 5-7). Next, teams decided upon climate

adaptation goals and reviewed the mandated climate mitigation goals for their project. They

selected strategies to meet their adaptation goals and reviewed pre-established strategies to

meet mitigation goals (IBAMA categories 8-11).

Using a scoring template provided in the case study exercise document, each group evaluated

their proposed adaptation strategies with respect to the mitigation goals and evaluated the

mitigation strategies with respect to their adaptation goals. In addition, mitigation and

adaptation strategies were evaluated vis-à-vis other criteria such as cost, complexity, and

reliability (IBAMA categories 12-13) 4. An example case study exercise is included in Appendix I.
3F

Following the exercise, the researcher elicited participants to discuss their proposed strategies,

how they were evaluated, and suggestions for modifications to the framework process and

parameters. In addition to the post-exercise discussion, participants were given the opportunity to

provide written feedback within their case study exercise documents. BC Housing also provided

additional feedback in a separate meeting following the workshop.

4 Categories 14 and 15 were not included in the exercise due to time constraints.

55
3.7.4 Analysis of Workshop Feedback

Participants’ verbal feedback was transcribed by a workshop assistant (Figure 3.4), and written

feedback from the case study exercise documents was collated. Additional input from a separate

BC Housing meeting was transcribed via meeting minutes. Feedback was then coded using NVivo

12 Pro, and organized into the following six categories:

• Framework Parameters
• Framework Process
• Framework Format
• Level of Complexity
• Framework Integration and Implementation
• Project Context
• Other Considerations

Figure 3.4 Excerpts of Verbal Feedback from Case Study Workshop

56
3.7.5 Stakeholder Workshop Limitations

The workshop and case study exercises were conceived to represent a condensed early project

stage decision-making process (Cherry & Petronis, 2016). Though team members were industry

experts, they were given a short time to familiarize themselves with the research problem, the

exercise and the case study projects. Moreover, given that knowledge of climate adaptation and

resilience is still nascent in the industry, some of the terminology would likely have been unfamiliar

to several participants. As such, the extent of stakeholder feedback was limited by both time and

experience. It should also be noted that all participants in the case study exercise were from

British Columbia, unlike the interviews, where perspectives from New York City were represented.

3.8 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Documents

Feedback from the stakeholder workshop, further input from BC Housing, and review of select

supplementary reference documents noted in Section 3.5.1.3 were used to modify the IBAMA

framework to develop a comprehensive draft of the framework tools (see Section 4.5 for details).

These tools are intended for use by multi-unit residential building teams and include a high-level

primer document, a detailed reference guide, and an Excel tool for assessment inputs. Final

versions of the primer and reference guide can be found in Appendices A and B.

The draft framework and associated tools were presented to stakeholders via webinar in May

2020. 55 experts were invited to attend the presentation, representing those who had either

participated in an expert interview and/or the November 2019 stakeholder workshop.

3.8.1 Survey and Comment Period

Following the webinar, stakeholders were asked to provide general feedback on the IBAMA tools

via a six-question survey, and more pointed feedback by commenting directly within the three

documents. The questions were designed to be open-ended, with general feedback elicited on
57
each of the three tools, as well as how the framework could be effectively applied on multi-unit

residential projects. Due to the onset of COVID-19 and potential interest in using the tools for

pandemic-related hazards, an additional question was added to inquire about how the tools

might be adapted to include non-climate hazards.

The survey was distributed to all webinar invitees via the University of British Columbia’s Qualtrics

survey tool (Qualtrics, 2019) to those invited to the presentation. The survey included embedded

links to the three documents which could be downloaded, annotated and emailed back to the

researcher. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix J.

Following a three-week comment period in June 2020, eight responses to the survey plus two sets

of comments via email were received, representing an 18% response rate. In addition, two of the

respondents also provided detailed comments directly in the draft IBAMA documents.

3.8.2 Analysis of Survey Feedback

Survey responses and additional feedback were organized by question number and categorized

according to the following themes:

• Framework Parameters
• Framework Process
• Format of Documents
• Level of Complexity
• Framework Implementation
• Time and Costs
• Education and Training
• Other Considerations

58
3.8.3 BC Housing Online Workshop

To supplement the survey responses, elicit more detailed feedback, and determine how to best

implement IBAMA, an online workshop was held in September 2020 for ten key BC Housing

stakeholders. The workshop was organized so that each framework section or group of sections

was presented, following which participants responded to a series of questions related to that

section or sections in a shared online document. The list of questions can be found in Appendix K.

Feedback was categorized by section, question and whether the comment pertained to

framework document modifications or implementation.

3.8.4 Draft Framework Feedback Limitations

Feedback on the draft IBAMA documents was originally conceived to occur in the context of a full-

day stakeholder workshop that would include a presentation and team exercises enabling

participants to test the tools. Due to the onset of COVID-19, this was reconfigured into a one-hour

online presentation, a survey, a request for detailed comments on the documents, and a separate

BC Housing online workshop.

A key limitation of this study relates to these revisions to the format for Phase Three stakeholder

feedback. Given the additional pandemic-related responsibilities of many participants, the

complexity of the documents, and the asynchronous collection of feedback, we received less input

than was originally expected from a multi-hour face-to-face workshop.

59
Chapter 4: Findings

The research findings enabled the development and refinement of an integrated climate

adaptation and mitigation process and framework for urban multi-unit residential buildings. The

findings and resultant framework attempt to answer the two initial research questions posed:

1. How can the design process for urban multi-unit residential buildings effectively integrate

both climate mitigation and adaptation considerations?

2. How can interactions between climate mitigation and adaptation strategies for urban

multi-unit housing designs be consistently evaluated to inform more integrated and

synergistic decision-making?

4.1 Phase One – Document Analysis Findings

The document analysis findings resulted in the initial IBAMA framework structure and parameters.

To further inform the framework’s development, the findings also established the state of climate

mitigation and adaptation initiatives in BC and New York City, and the degree to which building

industry guidelines and standards were integrating mitigation and adaptation approaches.

4.1.1 Identification of Initial IBAMA Framework Parameters

Initial IBAMA framework parameters in eight categories were distilled from the coding carried out

in Document Analysis A. See Table 4.1 for the initial parameter categories. Modifications,

additions and refinements to these initial parameters were carried out as part of Document

Analysis B and the semi-structured expert interviews. Further adjustments to the parameters and

framework structure were carried out in Phase Two following the case study workshop.

60
Table 4.1 Initial IBAMA Parameter Categories Derived from Document Analysis A

Parameter Category Sub-category

1. Boundaries

2. Hazards

3. C02 Emissions Indicators

4. Characteristics/Vulnerabilities Physical Assets

Social Assets/Capabilities
5. Goals

6. Strategies & Responses

7. Mitigation & Adaptation Interactions

8. Evaluation of Success

4.1.2 Context of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation in BC and New York City

To create an effective IBAMA framework for urban multi-unit residential buildings, it was

important to establish the existing state of climate action planning in the leading-edge regions

being investigated. Document Analysis B identifies climate mitigation goals and progress, as well

climate risks and adaptation planning in these regions, at both municipal and building scales. The

analysis also helped to refine the initial framework parameters derived in Document Analysis A.

4.1.2.1 Climate Mitigation and Sustainability

Analysis of climate mitigation policy documents in BC and New York City reveals specific trends

pertaining to GHG emissions and energy in the built environment, as well as to sustainability

goals. A few documents from other municipalities were reviewed for comparison.

61
4.1.2.1.1 GHG Emissions and Energy

The documents reviewed focus mainly on future GHG reduction targets and actions, with

projections as to how those actions could achieve the targets. Information about past and current

emissions is more limited and typically relegated to a graphic or a paragraph pertaining to

emissions data. According to government reports emissions are shown to be decreasing, but at a

significantly slower rate than necessary to achieve the stated climate targets. The City of

Vancouver indicates achieving a 12% GHG emissions reduction between 2007 and 2018 (City of

Vancouver, 2019b), with New York City indicating emissions reductions of 17% between 2005

and 2017 (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019).

The documents also confirm that buildings are responsible for a greater proportion of total GHG

emissions in large municipalities than they are provincially or federally. While buildings were

responsible for 10% of British Columbia’s 2014 GHG emissions (Government of British Columbia,

2016), 59% of Vancouver’s 2017 GHG emissions (City of Vancouver, 2019b) and 67% of New

York City’s 2016 emissions came from buildings (The City of New York, 2017b).

While opportunities for emissions reductions in buildings are significant, particularly in existing

buildings, progress has been slow. According to the City of Vancouver, there has been a 5%

reduction in emissions from the building sector since 2007, though improvements are much more

significant for new buildings (City of Vancouver, 2018b). Similarly, GHG reductions from building

energy efficiency improvements in New York City has been minor, with reductions largely

achieved due to changes in the electricity supply mix (New York City Mayor’s Office of

Sustainability, 2016).

62
4.1.2.1.2 Mitigation and Sustainability Goals and Initiatives

Given that past emissions reductions have been modest, Vancouver and New York City have set

very ambitious climate mitigation goals. The City of Vancouver initially set a target of 80%

reduction by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2017b). When the City declared a climate emergency in

2019, the goal was increased to target carbon neutrality by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2019a). In

2014, New York City committed to an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 (New York City

Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 2016). In 2019, this was increased to target carbon neutrality

by 2050, and 100% clean electricity by 2040 (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019).

These cities have also established aggressive GHG reduction targets for buildings. Vancouver is

aiming for a 20% reduction of GHG emissions from existing buildings (City of Vancouver,

2018b), and for zero emissions from new buildings by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2015). The

2019 Vancouver Climate Emergency response added a target of a 40% reduction in embodied

GHG emissions for new buildings by 2030 (City of Vancouver, 2019a). New York City targets a

reduction of 35% of emissions in existing city-owned buildings by 2025 (New York City Mayor’s

Office of Sustainability, 2016), net-zero energy for all newly constructed buildings by 2030

(New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019) as well as maximum GHG emissions thresholds for large

existing buildings by 2024 and 2030 (Urban Green Council, 2019b).

To varying degrees, these municipalities have translated their overall goals for climate mitigation

in buildings into specific targets and metrics mandated through building codes or other policies.

Using the BC Step Code, Vancouver established incremental greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI)

targets for different building types, as well as other targets related to energy use and

airtightness (City of Vancouver, 2016; Enright, 2018). This is in contrast to New York City, who

allow for multiple target pathways for city-owned or funded buildings (The New York City

63
Council, 2016a, 2016b). Non-municipal buildings must comply with the New York City Energy

Conservation Code (The City of New York, 2016).

Vancouver has also focused on mitigation goals for mid and high-rise multi-unit residential

buildings over six stories, which represented 29% of the city’s new built area in 2016 (City of

Vancouver, 2016). Requirements have also been set for new buildings on rezoned sites, which are

required to meet a near zero emissions standard such as Passive House (City of Vancouver,

2017a, 2018c).

At the municipal scale, climate mitigation is typically embedded in broader sustainability action

plans that include other objectives. New York City’s OneNYC also includes goals pertaining to

zero waste, stormwater management, water and air quality, and greenspace (The City of New

York, 2018b). Vancouver’s goals also include targets for green transportation, walkability, local

food, green economy, and reduced ecological footprint (City of Vancouver, 2015, 2018b,

2019a).

4.1.2.2 Climate Adaptation and Resilience

The climate adaptation policy documents reviewed pertain to climate projections; analysis of

hazards, vulnerabilities and risks; as well as climate adaptation planning and initiatives.

4.1.2.2.1 Climate Projections, Hazards, Vulnerabilities and Risks

The Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC) assessed specific indicators pertaining to historic

climate data and determined that the climate in British Columbia has already changed. General

trends assessed between 1900-2013 include an average annual temperature increase of 1.4ºC

per century, increases in night-time temperatures and annual precipitation, earlier snow melt and

64
river flow, increase in sea level rise, and warmer water temperatures (BC Ministry of Environment,

2016).

The BC government has also developed a climate risk assessment framework and carried out a

provincial climate risk assessment based on Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5,

information that is being used by BC agencies and local governments. The risk assessment

identifies high to extreme risk climate hazards in BC. Those pertaining to the built environment are

severe wildfires, short and long-term water shortages and heat waves. Key hazards for urban

environments include flooding, coastal storm surge, extreme precipitation and landslides. The

assessment notes the need for analysis of compounding hazards and cascading impacts (BC

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2019).

Critical climate hazards in Vancouver now include flooding and/or inundation due to sea level

rise, overland flooding due to increased frequency and intensity of precipitation, damage from

increased frequency and intensity of wind and rain storms, and more days of extreme warm

temperatures and heat waves (City of Vancouver, 2012). More recent hazards include king tide

flooding and summer air quality alerts due to wildfires (City of Vancouver, 2018a). Though not

defined as a climate hazard, per the City of Vancouver there is a 100% chance that Vancouver

and the Lower Mainland will be hit by a damaging earthquake (City of Vancouver, 2019d).

Future climate projections for Metro Vancouver indicate increases in daytime and nighttime

temperatures as well as peak seasonal temperatures (Metro Vancouver, 2016). Projections also

include rainfall increases (Metro Vancouver, 2016). Coupled with a projection of one metre of

sea level rise by 2100, increasing winter winds and storms surges, this will lead to increased

flooding (City of Vancouver, 2018d). By contrast, summer precipitation is predicted to decrease.

65
Drier summer conditions and reduced water supplies may also increase wildfire activity in the

region leading to poor air quality in Vancouver (Metro Vancouver, 2016).

New York City is focused on three main climate hazards: heat and rising temperatures, increasing

precipitation, and sea-level rise coupled with storms (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2019). Rising

temperatures are also exacerbated by the urban heat island effect (New York City Housing

Authority, 2019).

Both cities have vulnerabilities associated with large coastal urban areas. Physical vulnerabilities

in Vancouver include significant infrastructure situated in low-lying waterfront areas (City of

Vancouver, 2012). In New York, the 1% annual flood plain area is anticipated to cover one

quarter of the city’s landmass by 2050 (NYC Department of City Planning, 2019). Lack of

vegetation will also increase heat risks in some neighborhoods. Other physical vulnerability

concerns in Vancouver include unsafe buildings, aging civic facilities, insufficient food system

resilience, and lack of local back-up power (City of Vancouver, 2017c, 2019e). Socio-economic

vulnerabilities common to both cities include poverty, the high cost of housing, homelessness, social

isolation, elderly populations, and populations with chronic health issues (City of Vancouver,

2019e; New York City Housing Authority, 2019).

4.1.2.2.2 Adaptation and Resilience Goals and Initiatives

BC’s Climate Adaptation Strategy emerged as a response to specific hazards already occurring in

the province such as drought and wildfires. Three initial strategies were established: build a strong

foundation of knowledge by providing the necessary scientific information, climate-monitoring

programs, and adaptation planning tools for decision-makers; integrate adaption into

government activities such as planning, policy and new legislation; and assess risk and implement

66
priority adaptation actions through activities such as sector working groups, and updates of

existing policies and activities (BC Ministry of Environment, 2010).

Vancouver’s initial Climate Change Adaptation Strategy also focused on knowledge and capacity

building, integration of climate change into current municipal initiatives, and as well as targeted

adaptation actions. The goal was to increase resilience of city infrastructure, programs and

services to anticipated climate impacts, with a focus on vulnerable populations and flexible

management approaches. Given the uncertainty of future climate change, the plan prioritized

“no-regret” actions that would benefit the community regardless of the degree of climate change

experienced (City of Vancouver, 2012).

Proposed adaptation actions were evaluated according to the following criteria: sustainability,

effectiveness, risk & uncertainty, opportunity, implementation; and categorized as must do,

monitor, or investigate. Key actions included an integrated stormwater management plan, a

coastal flood risk assessment, an urban forest management plan, a backup power policy, and

including climate change adaptation measures in the next Vancouver Building Bylaw update,

amongst others (City of Vancouver, 2012).

Vancouver’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy was updated in 2018 with core actions focusing

on climate robust infrastructure, resilient buildings, prepared, connected communities, healthy and

vigorous natural areas, and coastline preparedness. Actions are being considered through the

lenses of climate change mitigation and equity. Multiple actions in the Resilient Buildings category

align with BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience project (BC Housing, 2019;

City of Vancouver, 2018a).

67
The 2019 Resilient Vancouver Strategy looks at adaptation and resilience through a broader

framework that includes climate and geophysical, technological, and health shocks, as well as

socio-economic, environmental and infrastructure stresses. The strategy focuses on enhancing

capacity in three priority areas: neighbourhoods, government, and buildings and infrastructure

(City of Vancouver, 2019e). The buildings and infrastructure efforts have primarily focused on

seismic resilience. Particular emphasis has been placed on designing and upgrading civic facilities

to support community resilience and minimizing disruption to infrastructure and critical services

(City of Vancouver, 2019e). The City has also created a Resilient Neighbourhoods program and

toolkit (City of Vancouver, 2019d).

In New York City, after some initial climate adaptation planning strategies were investigated in

the 2008 Green Codes Task Force (Urban Green Council, 2010), climate adaptation initiatives

mobilized quickly following Hurricane Sandy when a Building Resiliency Task Force was convened

and produced 33 recommendations. While the task force’s goal for commercial buildings was to

minimize business interruptions, the goal for residential buildings was that they be habitable as

soon as possible following a disaster. The objective was to ensure residential buildings provided

for occupants’ essential needs (Urban Green Council, 2013).

Since Hurricane Sandy, many adaptation and resilience projects have been initiated in New York

City at the building, landscape, planning and infrastructure scales (The City of New York, 2018a).

These initiatives have mainly focused on flood risks and related infrastructure failure, with more

recent initiatives targeting extreme heat (New York City Housing Authority, 2019; The City of

New York, 2017a).

The New York City Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines establish how the City can increase the

resiliency of its facilities. The goal of the guidelines is for the facility in question to withstand or
68
recover quickly from hazards, as well as to perform to its design standard throughout its useful

life. The City requires that all new and substantially renovated City capital projects apply the

guidelines in their planning process (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019). The

guidelines link climate projections to anticipated lifespans of buildings, systems and infrastructure.

This provides a way to balance the uncertainty of climate risks with costs, as well as manage

operational and maintenance constraints. The guidelines also promote an approach that

addresses multiple hazards with single interventions, leverages synergies and co-benefits such as

climate mitigation, and integrates ‘soft’ resiliency strategies (operational or green infrastructure)

with ‘hard’ ones. A framework for cost-benefit analysis is also included, though acknowledged by

the authors as a work in progress (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2019).

Zoning has also been revised for coastal flood resiliency. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy,

New York City’s Department of City Planning (DCP) adopted two zoning text amendments to

remove zoning barriers that were hindering the reconstruction and retrofits of damaged buildings.

In 2019, DCP released a report with recommendations for modifying zoning to respond to future

climate hazards (NYC Department of City Planning, 2019).

Mechanisms for appropriate project siting are also being explored. In certain neighborhoods,

zoning regulations may be amended to either limit density in areas where coastal flood risk is

high, or encourage density in areas where risk is low or can be effectively managed (NYC

Department of City Planning, 2019).

4.1.3 Integration between Mitigation and Adaptation

To effectively integrate and evaluate climate mitigation and adaptation strategies under a

unified framework, it was important to determine the degree to which existing standards and

guidelines are integrated, and in what manner.

69
Document Analysis B revealed that integration between mitigation and adaptation efforts is

limited. Many documents from each discipline have language acknowledging the importance of

considering the other either as a co-benefit, as an additional lens through which to assess a

strategy, or as a sub-section within the main theme of the document. In most documents, however,

there is a clear dominance and hierarchy of one field over the other.

To gain an understanding of how mitigation and adaptation interact, 24 documents were selected

to represent standards, references and rating systems that would be used to guide mitigation

and/or adaptation approaches for urban multi-unit residential buildings or their surrounding

neighbourhoods in North America. Most documents pertain to the building scale, with a few

focusing on the infrastructure, community, landscape or building system scales. Table 4.2 lists the

number of documents by area of focus and scale.

Table 4.2 Classification of Mitigation and Adaptation Documents Reviewed for Integration

Primary Buildings Community Landscape Infrastructure Systems Multiple

document focus
Mitigation and
6 1
Sustainability
Adaptation and
8 1 1
Resilience
Both and/or
3 1 2 1
Other

4.1.3.1 Mitigation and Sustainability Documents

Of the documents reviewed that focus primarily on mitigation and sustainability, mentions of

adaptation or resilience range from none to a few dedicated resilience requirements or optional

credits. On average, references are minor across all documents. When specific adaptation or

resilience measures are mentioned, they are included in parallel to mitigation and sustainability

initiatives rather than integrated, with a few exceptions such as sensitive land and flood plain
70
avoidance, stormwater management, and reducing the urban heat island effect (Enterprise

Community Partners, 2015a; International Living Future Institute, 2014; U.S. Green Building

Council, 2016b, 2018a, 2019).

Interactions between mitigation and adaptation are rarely mentioned, though some of the

proposed mitigation and sustainability measures have potential synergies or co-benefits with

adaptation and resilience goals. With one exception, trade-offs are not discussed. Floods, urban

heat island, and power disruption are the only hazards discussed, and with limited specificity.

Only one document mentions hazard, risk and vulnerability assessments (Enterprise Community

Partners, 2015a), and one other raises the need to design systems by taking into account future

climate data (American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2017).

The LEED® rating systems for homes and buildings has few explicit mentions of adaptation and

resilience. Several prerequisites and credits do propose measures that are potentially synergistic

with or beneficial to adaptation and resilience. However, these LEED® rating systems are not

structured to model or estimate how these measures meet specific resilience objectives. Some

proposed measures could also have conflicts or trade-offs depending upon the hazard (U.S.

Green Building Council, 2018a, 2019).

The Passive House Standard is referenced by the Enterprise Green Communities rating system as a

standard that could maintain habitability during a power outage (Enterprise Community Partners,

2015a). While Passive House can improve resilience to extreme temperatures, poor air quality

and power-outages, it does not address other hazards (Passive House Institute, 2016).

Conceived as a highly ambitious sustainability standard, the Living Building Challenge now includes

a provision for resilience in its Net-Positive Energy imperative. However, requirements may be

71
insufficient depending upon the hazard and climate, and other imperatives within the framework

could potentially create conflicts (International Living Future Institute, 2014).

Enterprise Green Communities targets affordable multi-unit residential buildings. Though primarily

a sustainability and mitigation-focused document, it contains the highest number of references to

resilience and adaptation of the documents reviewed. A particular emphasis is placed on

vulnerable populations and social resilience (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015a).

Community and social resilience are also implicitly promoted in LEED® for Neighborhood

Development. However, there are missed opportunities to tie proposed synergistic strategies to

climate hazards, risks and vulnerabilities; as well as to explicitly discuss community resilience and

emergency management (U.S. Green Building Council, 2016b).

The ASHRAE Handbook’s sustainability chapter was the only document reviewed in this section that

acknowledged and described some of the challenges of a changing climate. The Handbook

mentioned the vulnerability of building systems to climate change, the inefficacy of using historical

weather data for load calculations, and the responsibility of designers to be concerned with both

the mitigation and adaptation dimensions of climate change (American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2017).

4.1.3.2 Adaptation and Resilience Documents

The adaptation and resilience documents reviewed reference mitigation more frequently than

mitigation documents reference adaptation. This is specifically in the context of energy efficiency,

load reduction and passive survivability, but with little mention of embodied emissions. Emphasis is

placed on synergies with mitigation strategies, with limited references to conflicts and trade-offs.

The formats of the documents vary, with some focusing on broader resilience and others relating

72
to a specific hazard. Several documents are structured as guidelines while others are similar to

point-based sustainability certification systems. This raises the question of whether adaptation and

resilience frameworks should follow the same format as mitigation and sustainability frameworks.

The Community Resilience Benchmarks is conceived for high-level asessment at the community and

municipal scales. Many of the strategies listed would support mitigation and sustainability efforts,

however they are not referenced as goals (Alliance for National and Community Resilience,

2019).

Hazard-specific guidelines and standards such as FORTIFIEDTM for wind and hurricanes, FireSmart

for wildfires (FireSmart Canada, n.d.), and REDiTM for earthquakes have few mentions of

interactions with climate mitigation. Exceptions include provisions for renewable energy systems

(Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), 2019), passive comfort, and efficient

appliances and fixtures (Almufti et al., 2013).

The LEED® Pilot Credits for Resilience promote the concept of passive survivability. This approach

uses passive design and efficiency strategies to reduce the need for mechanical systems and

external energy and water sources. This concept is emphasized in a study by New York City’s

Urban Green Council, which demonstrates the importance of improving the performance of

building enclosures to ensure adequate thermal comfort during power outages (Urban Green

Council, 2014). The LEED® Pilot Credits for Resilience also require that half the back-up power

supplied come from solar or wind energy. While these credits do emphasize synergies between

mitigation and adaptation and acknowledge some trade-offs, they are voluntary credits

subsumed within the LEED® rating system, worth only five points out of a possible 110 towards

LEED® certification (U.S. Green Building Council, 2016a).

73
The Ready to Respond guidelines are geared to affordable multi-unit residential buildings. There

is explicit mention of the need to consider synergies with mitigation goals and reduce conflicts,

with an emphasis on green infrastructure and vegetation, Passive House design, and on-site

renewable energy. There are only a few mentions of conflicts or trade-offs. The guidelines also

recommend strategies for community resilience, many of which are synergistic with mitigation and

sustainability goals (Enterprise Community Partners, 2015b).

New York City’s Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines and the Climate Resilience Strategies for

Buildings in New York State focus on resilience but emphasize the need for load reduction and

passive design strategies. They discuss the feedback loop of increasing the urban heat island

effect from additional mechanical cooling (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency,

2019), reducing electricity demand and GHG emissions from the energy supply, and

neighborhood-scale synergistic strategies (Rajkovich et al., 2018). The New York City guidelines

advocate using strategies that align with municipal goals such as GHG emissions reduction, but

acknowledge the trade-offs from emergency power (NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and

Resiliency, 2019).

The specifics of backup power are elaborated in the City of Toronto’s Minimum Backup Power

Guidelines for MURBs. The guidelines aim to shelter-in-place residents by providing backup power

of essential loads for 72 hours. Natural gas generators are recommended, in part because of

their lower GHG emissions as compared to other fossil fuels. However, there is no other mention

of climate mitigation synergies or trade-offs (Carou, 2016).

4.1.3.3 Combined Mitigation/Adaptation and Other Document Types

A selection of documents addressed both mitigation/sustainability and adaptation/resilience.

These documents are the most diverse in terms of the scales addressed, with some including other
74
types of objectives beyond adaptation, mitigation or sustainability. The documents have varying

degrees of integration between mitigation and adaptation, ranging from credits or sections that

are siloed, to a document that explores synergies and trade-offs in significant detail.

Several of the combined documents focus on larger scales. ENVISION is conceived for sustainable

infrastructure. A points-based framework, it addresses the entire project lifecycle and is

positioned as a process-based collaborative tool. Mitigation and adaptation measures are

addressed in distinct credits, without providing a means to assess interactions between them

(Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2018). This siloed approach is similar in the Waterfront

Edge Design Guidelines for waterfront sustainability and resilience (Waterfront Alliance, 2018),

and the PEER rating system for electrical infrastructure (Green Business Certification Inc., 2018).

The RELi rating system is a resilience framework that draws from sustainability and regenerative

design guidelines. Structured similarly to LEED®, it emphasizes opportunities for integration across

multiple scales and a “living design approach for robust sustainability comprised of long-term

adaptation and mitigation, restoration, regeneration & resilience” (U.S. Green Building Council,

2018b, p.12). The framework is inclusive and ambitious, with prerequisites to ensure a minimum

level of both sustainability and resilience. However, its complexity will be challenging for project

teams trying to set appropriate priorities, and its use will likely be limited to large projects with

ample resources.

The MURB Design Guide attempts to provide an integrated framework for multi-unit residential

buildings that includes the concepts of sustainability, resilience, liveability and civility. The guide

presents a general approach for designing MURBs that prioritizes passive-first design and active

systems powered by renewables, with the goal of providing shelter through extreme weather

events. Some potential trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation are acknowledged.
75
Recommended building-related strategies are specific, though details regarding hazards,

emergency management, and community resilience are limited (Kesik & O’Brien, 2017).

Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Buildings posits that using a regenerative framework rather

than an efficiency-based approach will result in buildings that are both sustainable and resilient.

The report modifies the designs of two case study projects in Minnesota to ensure shelter-in-place

during a summer power outage and disruption of the water supply. It serves as a valuable design

approach for delving into the specifics of meeting an adaptation goal for a predetermined

hazard scenario while prioritizing sustainable strategies. However, it does not overtly address

trade-offs, and excludes embodied carbon considerations (Graves, Weber, & Kutschke, 2018).

FEMA’s Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Residential Buildings was the only document

reviewed that considered specific interactions between mitigation and adaptation strategies in an

integrated manner. The guideline looks at the impact of natural hazard risks on specific green

building strategies. Impacts of resilience strategies on green building objectives are not

investigated. The document also notes how strategies could be synergistic for one hazard but

create a conflict for another. Using lifecycle assessment (LCA), the document addresses embodied

GHGs, and introduces the concept of post-disaster sustainability benefits, or the avoided costs

and impacts associated with post-disaster reconstruction (Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 2010).

4.1.4 Summary of Document Analysis Findings

The document analysis reveals a robust climate mitigation context in both Vancouver and New

York City with clear regulatory requirements. Both cities also demonstrate more recent but rapidly

growing adaptation initiatives. However, with a few exceptions, there is a lack of significant

integration between mitigation and adaptation objectives.

76
The analysis also exposed the limited interaction between mitigation and adaptation in the

majority of rating system and guidelines documents reviewed, while uncovering some avenues to

more effectively integrate them. Most documents also failed to adequately address interactions

between multiple scales and hazards, and many were limited in considering future climate or a

project’s full lifespan. Finally, the structure of many adaptation/resilience frameworks is

organized according to the format of sustainability rating systems. These systems are typically

based on meeting minimum requirements coupled with a range of optional credits in order to

achieve a score or certification level. This may be problematic for ensuring adequate resilience as

credits can be chosen for ease of implementation and not linked to a project’s most critical risks.

4.2 Phase One – Semi-Structured Expert Interview Findings

Expert interview findings helped in refining the initial IBAMA framework parameters that were

derived from Document Analysis A. They were also used to triangulate results from Document

Analysis B regarding the state of climate action initiatives in BC and New York City. In addition,

the interviews revealed key factors associated with effective implementation and integration of

climate mitigation and adaptation that were used to inform the framework’s development.

4.2.1 Context of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation in BC and New York City

4.2.1.1 Climate Data

Interview subjects stressed the need to use future climate projections, or at least current weather

data, rather than historical data, when designing projects. It was noted that this is an emerging

rather than mainstream practice but is likely to become standard protocol in the near future.

“Professionals are starting to consider future climate projections in energy modelling and building
design services, and are required to do so in some public sector and research projects. But future
climate considerations are not mainstream yet because of lack of codified requirements, lack of
client demand, and knowledge gaps in applying future climate data.” – Engineering SME, BC

77
Challenges were cited regarding access to reliable future data, particularly in BC, where

municipalities are waiting on the provincial government to provide more granular data.

Where unavailability of data or requirements to follow existing protocols limit the use of future

climate data, experts mentioned using workarounds.

Uncertainty of the data as well as timeframes (e.g. 100 yr. storm vs. 500 yr. flood vs. 1700 yr.

wind event) vary according to the type of climate hazard. Several experts relied on official

government climate projections and noted the importance of using data that is harmonized and

collectively agreed upon, though sometimes government data was not sufficiently future-looking.

“The work that we do that includes adaptation is to take existing FEMA maps, which are based on
historic data looking backward, and add some projections looking forward to sea level rise to
increase the storm intensity frequency, and try to put some numbers on flood probabilities.”
– Engineering SME, NYC

The use of historical weather data is beginning to result in projects that are experiencing

overheating in BC, especially in Passive House projects. However, experts noted that using

historical data is helpful for understanding the history of hazards and for sizing peak stressors.

Modeling multiple climate scenarios was emphasized, to optimize the project design over its

lifespan.

4.2.1.2 Climate Context

4.2.1.2.1 GHG Emissions and Energy

Several experts acknowledged that buildings are responsible for a large share of GHG

emissions. However, in many instances, interviewees noted that adaptation takes precedence over

mitigation given that it pertains to life safety and resident well-being.

“We are a housing organization. Our priorities are always going to be the housing priorities.”
– Owner/Developer SME, NYC

78
Energy source was raised as a key variable in current emissions and future targets for New York

City, which is targeting a zero-carbon electrical grid by 2050. This varies significantly from BC,

which has a low carbon source of electricity.

“If you decarbonize electricity production, which allows you to decarbonize your buildings, and
you decarbonize transport, probably also through electrification, then the only thing you have left
is industry and embodied.” – Engineering SME, NYC

The viability of a full transition to zero carbon electricity in New York City was also questioned.

4.2.1.2.2 Hazards, Vulnerabilities and Risks

Interview subjects in New York City and British Columbia emphasized different hazards, with some

overlap. While hazards varied by location, experts noted that attention was being directed

primarily towards hazards that were already occurring.

“The best climate adaptation people said if you're running into problems now a little bit, that's
what you should worry about, because that's what's going to hit you biggest and fastest.”
– Policy SME, BC

In many instances, hazards were being studied individually, but several experts noted the

importance of an integrated multi-hazard approach and understanding potential cascading

impacts throughout the lifespan of the building or system.

Prioritizing hazards and risks due to limited resources emerged as a theme. Some BC experts

cited an earthquake-first approach, given that it would be the most extreme hazard, and that

preparing for a major earthquake would by default help prepare for less extreme hazards.

Another expert recommended looking at the top ten hazards based on frequency and severity

and prioritizing the top three. Prioritizing hazard impacts to critical facilities was also mentioned.

“If you are a providing a critical service, you're a seniors center or police station, something that
has a vulnerable population or is performing a valuable service, in many cases it doesn't matter
what your protection system is, you probably want a second level of protection.”
– Policy SME, NYC

79
Failure of infrastructure systems, notably power and water, was mentioned frequently. Experts

recommended having a better understanding of risks at the broader scale and how they relate to

building risks. Concerns were raised about the increasing risks of power outage, especially as a

transition to electricity is being promoted as a low carbon solution. The cost of back up power and

the trade-offs associated with diesel fuel use and storage was deemed as challenging.

In order to prioritize actions, experts also recommended understanding potential hazards within

their immediate context, such as the physical environment, vulnerability of the populations they

were impacting, and availability of neighborhood resources. One engineer stressed that

vulnerabilities are often overlooked in risk assessments and are very important, particularly

income and economic-based vulnerabilities.

“Where you sit on the vulnerability scale, to me, in a risk assessment doesn't come through…From
a multifamily housing point of view, where you sit on the income scale is more important than your
flood elevation. If you're high income, you can just go get a hotel room for a week. If you're low
income, you could become bankrupt.” – Engineering SME, NYC

4.2.1.3 Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainability Goals

4.2.1.3.1 Climate Mitigation Goals

Interviews in both New York City and BC confirmed that climate mitigation goals are evolving

from being voluntary to government mandated.

“In the past couple of years, we've gone from leading the conversation around sustainability
generally, to having in particular the City of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia,
really, I would say, step up to the plate with new policy requirements.” – Architecture SME, BC

Municipal goals focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets, while goals at the

building scale tend to include energy performance metrics. Energy reduction targets are shifting

from relative reductions from a baseline to absolute energy use and GHG emissions targets. In

Vancouver, a recent 40% reduction target in embodied carbon for new construction was also

mentioned.

80
Some concerns were raised about current mitigation targets and approaches, most notably the

challenges associated with shifting to all electric systems and a renewable-energy based grid.

“I think that shifting to electric is the right thing to do from a carbon standpoint. And the devil is
entirely in the detail. So there's a question about how quickly can buildings themselves transition to
all electric. There's a parallel question about how quickly the grid can transition from being fairly
heavily carbon to decarbonized.” – Engineering SME, NYC

One expert emphasized that more effort needs to be made beyond the building scale to

establish climate mitigation goals for neighbourhoods and districts.

“Cities are saying that if our building stock can be zero carbon by x date, we essentially win. And
for sure, that's an incredibly important goal. But the trade-off to achieving true zero carbon is
investing equally in the district context where these buildings are sitting.” – Urban Design SME,
NYC

4.2.1.3.2 Sustainability Goals

In addition to climate mitigation goals, some experts discussed sustainability goals relevant to the

mitigation-adaptation nexus. These included goals related to water management, biodiversity,

social and economic sustainability, and health and well-being. Experts emphasized a focus on

synergies and co-benefits as a means to achieve sustainability goals.

While one expert noted that health and well-being goals were key co-benefits to leverage when

promoting mitigation and adaptation, another highlighted conflicts with mitigation objectives.

“We as a culture are rightly demanding higher quality ventilation, higher quality air conditioning,
heating, more appliances, cell phones, refrigerators, TVs. Our lifestyles are expanding and the
quality of office buildings and multifamily buildings, the amount of ventilation that's provided, a
lot of the codes that are requiring those…are actually requiring more energy use.” – Engineering
SME, NYC

In the cases of urban design and water management, one interview subject indicated that the lens

of sustainability can integrate mitigation and adaptation goals under a holistic framework. A few

experts are also looking at goals beyond mitigation and adaptation, that go from a “do less

harm” model towards a regenerative one where projects can improve their surrounding

environment.
81
4.2.1.3.3 Adaptation and Resilience Goals

Interviews revealed that while climate mitigation goals are typically metrics-based and often

mandated, adaptation and resilience goals, when they exist, are highly variable and have not

reached the same degree of integration into policy or practice.

“Adaptation hasn't had the same kind of airtime that mitigation has over the past decade; there's
probably just over a handful of communities in the province that have actually done adaptation
plans.” – Sustainability & Adaptation SME, BC

At the building scale, there appears to be more of a focus on strategies to address specific

hazards than on goals. Unlike climate mitigation goals, some experts stressed that setting

adaptation goals involves a process as opposed to meeting a specific standard.

“It's a process approach with housing owners and developers. It can't be theoretical, it has to be,
here's what you're facing, here's what the cost is to you right now.” – Adaptation SME, NYC

Nevertheless, standard checklists are currently being used as a way to gather information and

evaluate existing properties in order to help inform goals.

The adaptation and resilience goals raised covered a broad range that can be categorized as

either occupant-focused, asset-focused, or community-focused. Occupant-focused goals ranged

from minimum life safety for evacuation, to health standards, to sheltering-in-place in fully

functional apartments. Asset-focused goals pertained to appropriate siting, minimizing damage,

operational function, and recovery and repair through the lenses of time and costs. Community-

focused goals included community organization, social connectivity, improved infrastructure, and

economic resilience.

Inconsistency around who was determining goals was also discussed. Beyond minimum code

requirements, goals are being determined by city agencies, individual owners, community

members or project teams.

82
 “It still comes down to who's in the room. And who's asking the question? Who's the project
manager? Who's the project director? Are they good enough at storytelling to capture the
imagination of the person sitting on the other side of the table?” – Engineering SME, NYC

One adaptation expert emphasized that flexibility in setting goals was also necessary as

different agencies and building types have different functional requirements. What emerged was

the need for alignment, or at least coordination of goals across multiple groups, scales and

timelines; between building owners, neighborhoods, agencies and municipalities.

4.2.2 Implementation of Mitigation and Adaptation

4.2.2.1 Scalar Considerations

Experts remarked that consideration of the appropriate scale for action was relevant for

determining effective approaches to mitigation and adaptation. The relationship between the

municipality, infrastructure, neighbourhood and building was also seen as a central consideration.

Several subjects stressed the importance of these systems and scalar interactions.

“It really homed in on the need for a systems thinking approach... So understanding the
interconnectedness between whether it’s water flows, energy flows, your site ecology, looking at
opportunities or synergies with your neighbors, particularly when you're operating or designing at
a master planning level, what are the opportunities for synergies with the neighboring whether it's
community amenities, or industry?” – Architecture SME, BC

Municipalities were citied as the most appropriate scale for coordinating emergency

management, community resilience and infrastructure planning efforts. Use of municipal tools such

as zoning, development permit areas, guidelines, codes and regulations were all referenced.

Water, green infrastructure and power were the main infrastructure types mentioned. Challenges

and opportunities for distributed systems were discussed. The impact of building electrification on

gas and electricity infrastructure was a dominant theme for both mitigation and adaptation. Some

also commented on the relationship between urban density and infrastructure capacity.

83
 “If we have localized solutions such as green infrastructure or even storage tanks to meet
aspirations around harvest and reuse, that is quite simply more water that isn’t contributing to
system overflows and polluting our receiving waters. It’s also important to conserve capacity in the
pipe system so that more sewage goes to the treatment plant. And from a shocks and stressors
point of view, having these distributed system elements is really important to simply make space
for water in our cities, that are less susceptible to failure than centralized ones.”
– Planning SME, BC

Many interviewees stressed the importance of the neighborhood and community scale, primarily

for adaptation and resilience. Experts discussed the role of critical facilities, neighborhood assets

and community organizations. However, initiatives at this scale appear to be less developed.

Buildings were the main unit of reference discussed for most mitigation and many adaptation

initiatives. Owners, designers and engineers seemed to have the greatest control over initiatives

at this scale and delved into details of building-specific strategies and solutions. Several interview

subjects stressed that the existing building stock must be considered, and that new buildings had a

responsibility to support existing facilities in adaptation planning.

“I really believe every new building can be designed to be undamaged in an earthquake, and
we're going to get there. We've got all the tools and devices to get there. I just hope as a
community we get there soon, because then for new buildings they're not part of the post-
earthquake problem anymore, we’re not adding a problem. Then we can focus on upgrading
existing buildings.” – Engineering SME, BC

There was a particular emphasis on communication strategies for improving social resilience and

emergency management. Neighborhood activities, outreach to vulnerable populations, public

education, and relationship building were some approaches discussed. However, effective

communication and relationship building was remarked to be a challenging endeavour.

“We were part of this ‘Hey Neighbor’ pilot in the City of Vancouver, which was looking at high
rise multifamily buildings and getting people to know their neighbors, and hopefully contribute to
social well being… And it was primarily through programming and events…So we're trying to
recreate that in our rental buildings. And then…maybe we can more easily roll out emergency
preparedness training, through the network, or these networks and these champions that we're
building up. – Owner/Developer SME, BC

84
4.2.2.2 Leadership and Knowledge

Experts perceived a growing level of awareness and concern about climate issues amongst the

general public and within the industry. However, they noted lack of sufficient knowledge and

expertise with respect to both mitigation and adaptation. This was mentioned as a main cause of

inconsistency in establishing goals.

“If somebody wants to build an art gallery or factory, and you ask them ‘What kind of level of
resilience do you want?’ And they look at us, ‘What kind of question is that?’…The level of
understanding on the client side for most projects is quite low.” – Engineering SME, NYC

Several experts noted that developing knowledge and skills was crucial to successful mitigation

and adaptation efforts on projects. One interview subject recommended that experts in mitigation

be trained on adaptation and vice versa.

Given these knowledge limitations, interview subjects favored simplicity in developing climate

solutions. One expert stressed that implementation frameworks also needed to strive for simplicity.

Though expertise was cited as an important factor, success or failure of initiatives was most often

attributed to leadership. The type of ownership was also a key factor, with larger and long-term

owners noted to typically be more invested in mitigation and adaptation efforts.

“The successes I've seen, and this is one of the reasons why I'm in this role, is because you have a
client team that's interested, and has written something into the project brief. And that really is
mandating from top down.” – Owner/Developer SME (Neighbourhood), NYC

4.2.2.3 Processes, People and Organizations

As mitigation and adaptation are increasing the number of design parameters, experts mentioned

the importance of more extensive studies and analysis prior to and during design. Auditing real-

estate portfolios and the existing building stock was also critical to understanding macro-level

mitigation and adaptation.

85
 “We started looking more aggressively initially through PHPP at how to trim the heat gains and
then move to hourly modeling of individual suites, which we've now developed a pretty good
system for doing that. That system has been adopted by [names removed for confidentiality], we
now have to model suites, and we have targets for all buildings.” – Sustainability SME, BC

How mitigation and adaptation initiatives are organized was also seen as a contributing factor to

their successful implementation. Emphasis was placed on a more effective design and construction

process in order to achieve mitigation and adaptation goals. Some experts felt that there was

also a need to better leverage local knowledge for informed decision-making about adaptation.

“What's exciting about working with them [BC local governments] right now, is that many are
interested in and committing to integrated climate action planning, whereby they update
their emissions inventories and forecasts and undertake risk and vulnerability assessments, saving
time and resources by collecting and evaluating climate data at the same time. This data then
becomes part of the local government toolbox to be used when evaluating policies, plans, and
individual strategies against more comprehensive, resilience-based criteria such as reducing
community risk and vulnerability to projected impacts, lowering emissions, and advancing co-
benefits alongside typical criteria such as cost and feasibility.” – Sustainability & Adaptation
SME, BC

Partnerships with anchor organizations were perceived as contributing to solutions tailored to the

uniqueness of each community. Early goal setting, clear roles and responsibilities, and a high level

of communication throughout the project were identified as critical to success. Some observed that

relationship-building was a needed complement to formal planning, policy and engineering

strategies. Current governance structures were seen as a barrier to greater integration.

Project performance was noted as an ongoing challenge, with several experts stressing the need

for gathering performance data, training qualified operators, and recommissioning projects. Post-

occupancy testing was cited as important but not frequently performed.

“It's a huge difference depending on the training of the building staff. Some of them are so well
versed in this stuff. They not only know their building inside and out, but where their flood logs are
kept, how to install them, what the problems are with the gaskets, and how often they should be
running a dry run of setting up everything. And the difference between some of these buildings
can be really extraordinary.” – Policy SME, NYC

86
4.2.2.4 Availability of Resources

Lack of adequate resources be they financial, technological, or human, was noted as a key

challenge to achieving mitigation and adaptation goals. Some experts suggested that either

mitigation or adaptation would be favored in the context of limited resources, while others

advocated combining mitigation and adaptation efforts and funding to increase efficiency.

Limited human resources were also mentioned, especially with respect to emergency management.

The most frequent resource challenge mentioned was economic. High performance projects were

seen as more expensive, though one expert remarked that cost premiums could be kept low by

early project goal setting and team integration. Experts emphasized using cost-effective

strategies that create synergies and co-benefits.

“When we get projects early on, we're seeing that it's really doable, and we can make these
projects work. And there's not necessarily a massive additional cash injection that's necessary. And
it's really those projects that are coming a little bit later on or have done a lot of design work
without involving us early on, that it becomes more challenging.” – Owner/Developer SME, BC

Investigating all available funding and financial incentives was deemed as essential to integration

of technical solutions. Combining mitigation and adaptation subsidies was also suggested for

potential cost savings, since funding is typically siloed. Financial levers such as insurance and

mortgage rates were also referenced for implementing adaptation. However, the effectiveness of

these mechanisms seemed to vary based on the hazard and region.

“If you're in the Flood Insurance Program, and you elevate your home, your insurance premiums
go down and within a few years, you've paid off whatever investment you've made…But the city is
self-insured, we rely on our ability to get access to capital and to end with the federal government
to help us recover from extreme weather events...We don't pay those premiums that can drop the
more resilient we are.” – Architecture SME, NYC

Other approaches discussed include the use of better asset management tools. Experts cited the

advantage of mitigation projects to leverage operational cost savings through lifecycle cost

analysis, with adaptation projects more difficult to justify financially since they are typically

87
based on potential avoided damages. One interview subject noted the challenge of assessing a

return on investment based on a future potential hazard event. Another expert remarked that

governments also need to consider societal costs such as displacement of people and disruption of

the economy when evaluating returns on investment.

“Displacing 500,000 kids means you displace all those families from going to work, and it
becomes economic…So when you look at proper (hazard) mitigation factors, you are alleviating
in pre-mitigation what's going to happen to the shelters, you're keeping people and businesses in
operation” – Architecture SME, NYC

4.2.2.5 Time and Lifecycle

Time was revealed to be an important factor in successfully implementing mitigation initiatives.

Several BC interviewees referenced the Energy Step Code as a model where increasingly

ambitious targets could be adopted over time as meeting previous targets was mastered. With

adaptation and resilience, experts noted the necessity to think dynamically over the entire

lifespan of the asset and its systems.

“We advise our clients that we want them to look at 100 years, and most of them are
comfortable with 50 years to look at.“ – Architecture SME, NYC

One expert remarked on the challenge of designing for several different climate scenarios over

the lifespan of the building, but that designers of current projects should be building in the

flexibility to retrofit for future climate. Another noted the difficulty of retrofitting certain elements,

which should be designed for the more extreme climate projection.

“Once you've chosen your materials, once you've chosen your mechanical systems and their heat
tolerance, it's much harder to change some of these things. It's the same with rainfall retention,
we're talking about whole building systems for reuse, or green roofs, or large underground tanks,
these things are just hard to change. They're hard to retrofit.” – Policy SME, NYC

4.2.2.6 Governance, Regulations, and Voluntary Standards

The role of governments in mitigation and adaptation planning was raised frequently. References

to government actions included climate action plans, collecting relevant data, establishing policies,

88
codes and regulations; and using their own buildings to set precedents. Municipal governments

were perceived to have large spheres of influence. Some experts mentioned shifting governance

structures from siloed to integrated as a requisite for mitigation and adaptation implementation.

Building codes and regulations were perceived to be an essential mechanism for systematizing

and enforcing mitigation and adaptation, leading to their broad acceptance. However, many

agreed that codes typically set minimum standards that were not sufficient nor always resulted in

higher performance, and they merited improvement. Several people observed that conflicts

between different codes could inhibit successful implementation of mitigation or adaptation.

“Commercial and residential lighting densities are dropping for sure. That the code is requiring
that that's, that's excellent. But it's not really outpacing the amount of…the volume of ventilated,
fully ventilated, over ventilated space in New York City, which is a code requirement.”
– Engineering SME, NYC

There were differing opinions about how code language should be structured: a simpler

prescriptive approach as compared to a more dynamic performance-based format. One expert

noted that some adaptation measures were more easily codified than others, and another

explained that only certain measures could be legally included in code language.

“DEP has a standard for how much water you should retain on site. That's pretty straightforward
to change. Design flood elevation is pretty straightforward to change. Questions about whether or
not you should be building in a zone that is right on the water and will be flooded by tide in the
future... Should anybody be allowed to build the future tidal zone? I don't know. That's a zoning
question. That's a much thornier issue.” – Policy SME, NYC

Another suggestion was to mandate the more easily accepted “low-hanging fruit” in codes and

regulations, and incentivize leading property owners to incorporate additional measures through

voluntary frameworks. Voluntary guidelines were identified as a way for leading-edge owners to

achieve higher targets which might then be incorporated into future codes. While these types of

frameworks were deemed as important for advancing adaptation, one expert cautioned that

they should not be structured as rating systems due to potential liability.

89
4.2.3 Evaluation of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

From the interviews, evaluation of strategies to achieve mitigation and sustainability goals

appeared further advanced than for adaptation. There was very limited mention of metrics for

embodied emissions, though it was noted that the City of Vancouver was developing them.

Pre-construction evaluation is typically being carried out via energy modeling, though one expert

noted that models often differ significantly from actual performance. As a result, the City of

Vancouver has developed standardized energy modeling guidelines to resolve this issue.

Post-occupancy evaluations offered a more accurate assessment of mitigation solutions. Building

energy reporting and audit regulations in New York City also contribute to evaluation of the

building stock at the macro-scale.

“One of the things that audits require, for example, is an inventory of systems in buildings. So you
put down whether your building has single glazing, what percentage of glazing it has, what kind
of a heating system it has, what kind of boiler it has if it has a boiler, etc. So collecting that data
turned out to be a gold mine in terms of understanding, for example, that 75% of the area of
New York City's large buildings is heated by steam heat.” – Policy SME, NYC

Experts noted that proposed adaptation strategies could also be evaluated via modeling. For

some hazards such as hurricanes, they mentioned adhering to standards or rating systems that

have performed effectively under past hazards in order to estimate project performance.

“Our house is FORTIFIED that we did for [name removed for confidentiality]. There's just over
5000 of these homes built in the Gulf Coast. With all of the disasters that happened the last three
or four years, not a single one of those homes lost their roofs.” – Architecture SME, NYC

However, it was noted that multiple adaptation/resilience systems exist, with no front-runner.

“There are a lot of rating systems out there currently, none of them are driving the market. Not
quite like a LEED certification does in sustainability…There are some that are overly complicated.”
– Architecture SME, NYC

Other types of evaluation discussed were comparisons of multiple design options, as well as pilot

projects. Assessing human-centered adaptation strategies was mentioned as highly challenging.

90
4.2.4 Integration between Mitigation and Adaptation

In general, interviews revealed that mitigation and adaptation are typically separate efforts,

with exceptions in some organizations. Even within the adaptation field, there appears to be

limited communication between the building/infrastructure teams and emergency management.

There were differing views on whether and how mitigation and adaptation should be integrated.

While some expressed the need for more integration, two adaptation experts felt that while

mitigation and adaptation need to be coordinated, there are advantages to them remaining

distinct. Another expert advocated for the need to look at both in a broader holistic way that is

proactive and reactive and considers both technical and social factors.

“The ultimate thing I believe about this issue, is for both resiliency and sustainability to be
meaningful they have to be part of business as usual, which means they have to coexist and be as
complementary as possible…Whether resiliency and sustainability as fields of thought need to be
in lockstep or in close coordination, I don't feel as convinced about that.” – Policy SME, NYC

Adaptation was often prioritized over mitigation, with one owner stressing that there was so much

room for improvement on mitigation that they had limited concerns about the impacts of

adaptation strategies on mitigation goals.

“We have so much headroom in terms of our ability to improve on the mitigation side. I think that
if we were at optimal performance with the existing systems that we have, then maybe we would
be more leery about what these trade-offs are.” – Owner/Developer SME, NYC

Though some interview subjects speculated that the general public may not even distinguish

between mitigation and adaptation, others observed that stakeholders often understood and

embraced adaptation more easily than mitigation. A few experts suggested recasting mitigation

through the lens of adaptation, or vice-versa, to facilitate adoption of both.

“Our asset managers, finance guys, even our building guys who are predominantly engineers, they
get the resilience stuff, so it is not a fight to do the resilience stuff.” – Owner/Developer SME, BC

91
4.2.5 Interactions between Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

4.2.5.1 Synergies and Co-benefits

Experts focused on leveraging solutions that provided multiple mitigation, adaptation and other

benefits, one expert using the analogy of “triple-word scores.” Three main approaches were

raised with regards to leveraging synergies and co-benefits: passive strategies, green

infrastructure, and integrated water management.

“There are all kinds of other landscaping quality of life benefits that come from having more rain
gardens, permeable pavements, and facilities that are able to work more regularly because they
are not puddling water, they're soaking up water when it rains.” – Policy SME, NYC

Other synergies mentioned focused on building systems that used greener electricity to provide

heating, cooling and air filtration, and on-site battery storage combined with renewables.

“This pilot that we're doing on [name removed for confidentiality] is actually a great both
mitigation adaptation example, in that we’ve got these in-suite fan coil units that are on an
extremely high temperature loop that provide heating, and so it's a super inefficient system...We
found that we can get rid of those fan coil units by putting these little PTAC mini-split heat pump
units…And one of the great things about these [name removed for confidentiality] units we
found is that you can actually fit a MERV 13 filter in them as well, too. This is decarbonizing the
building by 70%. ” – Owner/Developer SME, BC

At the neighborhood scale, some district systems and urban design solutions were lauded as

providing both mitigation and adaptation benefits. There were few mentions of synergistic

solutions with regards to embodied carbon emissions reduction. Operational synergies are

another area that was not discussed but merits further exploration.

4.2.5.2 Conflicts and Trade-offs

While many interviewed emphasized synergies and co-benefits, some conflicts and trade-offs

between mitigation and adaptation were acknowledged as inevitable.

“Healthcare clients in particular are looking at building in redundant systems. So does that
redundancy add to the climate change effects as well, if you're building in additional backup
power, or capacity, or water storage? What effects is that having? I think they're questions that
were kind of grappling with as we enter into this whole dialogue around resiliency.”
– Architecture SME, BC
92
Mitigation and sustainability conflicts that were discussed related to increased energy use for

cooling, the use of GHG intensive refrigerants for cooling systems, and emissions from backup

generators. Some in New York City argued that once the electrical grid was decarbonized, there

would be little to no conflicts. However, others questioned the reality of fully transitioning to all-

electric systems. Embodied emissions were mentioned by a few experts as a potentially

substantial conflict for providing resilience and redundancy.

“When we talk about things like hardening facilities for flooding, a lot of folks go immediately
towards retaining walls. And that's all carbon intensive, that's very strong, lots of concrete.”
– Architecture SME, NYC

Adaptation and resilience conflicts that emerged pertained to overheating in Passive House

projects, passive ventilation strategies being unsuitable during forest fires, and promoting

electrification of buildings that could increase the vulnerability of electrical infrastructure. Trade-

offs included a lesser degree of functionality of a building following a hazard event.

Planning experts noted that densification or zoning bonuses to favour mitigation can result in

adaptation and resilience trade-offs such as increased urban heat island and stormwater runoff.

At the infrastructure scale, widespread transition of heating systems to renewable electricity

would result in the decline of natural gas infrastructure, thereby eliminating redundancy. Conflicts

can also arise between different regulations, and between strategies used for different hazards.

“You could imagine moving to a situation where you could use gas to support the heating or to
support a generator that then supports heating...But if you are moving to an all electric system the
gas infrastructure will start to fall apart.” – Engineering SME, NYC

4.2.5.3 Compromises, Leverage Points and Offsets

There was general agreement that as the climate changes, there will rarely be solutions where

adaptation–mitigation trade-offs don’t exist, and most felt that adaptation to minimum life-safety

and health standards had to be prioritized. A passive-first approach was cited to be the best

93
means of reducing loads so that GHG and other impacts would be minimized. Load reduction

would also reduce requirements for back up systems.

“You can't actually take all the fat out, you can only take 90% of the fat out, because you've got
to still continue to be able to operate. And I think, actually that that is the switch: from thinking
only about sustainability and driving things as low as possible, to thinking about resilience, to say
that it's got to work for this. And then it's got to work for these realistic and plausible scenarios
that could happen in the next 30 years, or the life of my system. That's the design condition.”
– Engineering SME, NYC

Several experts recommended community-based adaptation solutions that would lessen trade-offs

and costs. These included improving critical facilities and neighborhood infrastructure, and better

community coordination.

“…when you can provide life safety and basic needs through community facilities in one location,
to me, from a resilience standpoint, from a cost-benefit analysis, from a risk assessment point of
view, if you make a critical asset that the community can utilize during any kind of event,…You
make the strong investment in a public, oftentimes, schools or community centers, libraries, civic
buildings servicing a certain radius. That tends to provide the critical life safety needs in a much
more cost-effective manner than having every building providing them for themselves.”
– Engineering SME, NYC

Some acknowledged that there was still a need to depend on fossil fuels for redundant power,

and that increasing resiliency often resulted in higher embodied carbon emissions. One expert

suggested offsetting emissions for an adaptation strategy by reducing impacts elsewhere.

While mitigation and/or adaptation were priorities for those were interviewed, they

acknowledged that other project requirements typically have equal or greater priority. These

may be design criteria, budgets, resident lifestyle choices, building codes and regulations, and

other project parameters. They noted that this sometimes made it challenging to meet mitigation

and adaptation goals.

94
4.2.6 Summary of Expert Interview Findings

Expert interview findings reinforced that BC and New York City have advanced policies and

practices with regards to climate mitigation, many of which are mandated. Both regions are also

rapidly advancing adaptation efforts, though data, knowledge and expertise are still nascent.

Integration between mitigation and adaptation was limited, with a focus mainly on finding

synergies whenever possible, and without a formal process for considering interactions.

To successfully implement mitigation and adaptation solutions, interviews highlighted the need to

focus on scalar interactions, better process and team integration, more strategic resource

allocation, expanded training and education, and post-occupancy verification. These findings

were considered in development of the IBAMA framework.

4.3 Phase One – Draft Framework Structure and Parameter Development

Based on the findings from the document analysis and expert interviews, a draft Integrated

Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework structure and parameters were

developed. Table 4.3 compares the initial eight parameter categories derived from Document

Analysis A to the resultant 15 parameter categories established at the end of Phase One.

95
Table 4.3 Evolution of IBAMA Parameter Categories

Document Analysis A Phase One

Initial Parameter Categories Final Parameter Categories
1. Boundaries 1. Project Information

3. C02 Emissions Indicators 2. Climate Parameters

2. Hazards 3. Climate Hazards

4. Characteristics/Vulnerabilities 4. Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazard

• Physical Assets
• Social Assets/Capabilities 5. Neighbourhood Assets for Adaptation

6. Neighbourhood Risks

7. Project Risks

5. Goals 8. Adaptation to Risks - Goals

6. Strategies & Responses
9. Adaptation Strategies to Meet Goals

10. Mitigation Goals

11. Mitigation Strategies

7. Mitigation & Adaptation 12. Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies

Interactions
8. Evaluation of Success 13. Evaluation of Mitigation Strategies

14. Adaptation and Neighbourhood Resilience

15. Mitigation and Neighbourhood Resilience

The IBAMA framework is conceived as a process-based approach to be used sequentially and

throughout a project’s development. It is a flexible decision-making tool rather than a set of

prescriptive requirements or a score-based rating system. This enables project teams to respond

to the unique context, vulnerabilities and circumstances of their project including factors such as

location, climate hazards, occupant demographics, budgets, and management structure.

96
To be effectively implemented, IBAMA was designed to be used primarily at the pre-design and

early design stages of projects. This requires a front-loaded approach with multiple stakeholders

working collaboratively to develop goals and strategies, akin to an integrated design process (Lu,

Sood, Chang, & Liao, 2020). Though the majority of effort occurs at early project stages, the

framework is meant to be used throughout subsequent design, construction, and project occupancy

phases. This is essential for reinforcing initial goals and ensuring that effective strategies are

employed.

Phase One framework parameter categories and their interactions are outlined in Figure 4.1.

Parameter categories and interactions are described in sections 4.3.2 through 4.3.12.

Figure 4.1 Phase One Draft Framework Categories and Interactions

97
4.3.1 Category One – Project Information

Project information gathering is the initial step in the IBAMA process. Here, the project team would

gather general information such as project location, housing typology, and budget; relevant site

and desired building features; and anticipated building demographics such as age, income, and

family type. This section helps identify specific project characteristics and vulnerabilities in order

to determine project risks and point to appropriate climate mitigation or adaptation solutions.

4.3.2 Category Two – Climate Parameters

Climate parameters refer to the climate scenarios and timeframes to be used for a project’s

design. These include the representative concentration pathway (RCP) climate scenario

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, n.d.) selected by the project team, and the target

year or years associated with that scenario. Target years would typically be linked to the

project’s anticipated lifespan, as well as the lifespan of key building systems. Climate parameters

can also include historical and current weather data relevant to calculating peak loads or

determining hazard patterns.

4.3.3 Category Three – Climate Hazards

This section helps project teams identify the most critical climate hazards to their project and the

surrounding neighbourhood, based on the climate scenarios identified. It also includes determining

potential cascading impacts resulting from the hazard, such as transportation or infrastructure

interruptions due to flooding. Criteria for determining critical hazards include frequency,

intensity/severity, exposure, and affected area.

4.3.4 Category Four – Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazards

The neighbourhood resilience category was created in response to the document analysis and

interview findings, which highlighted the need to consider multiple scales as well as social and
98
economic factors when developing adaptation and resilience strategies for buildings. In this

section, a high-level neighbourhood resilience assessment would be carried out for each critical

hazard and used to help inform a project’s potential adaptation strategies. Parameter sub-

categories in this section include infrastructure, buildings, environment, transportation, municipal

demographics, community services and governance, municipal economic indicators.

4.3.5 Categories Five & Six – Neighbourhood Assets for Adaptation/ Neighbourhood Risks

Based on the information from the neighbourhood resilience assessment in Category Four and the

hazards identified in Category Three, the project team would then identify neighbourhood assets

(Category Five) that could contribute to a project’s overall adaptation and resilience, as well as

key neighbourhood risks (Category Six) that may increase the project’s vulnerability to a specific

climate hazard. Identification of these assets and risks will contribute to developing more targeted

project adaptation goals and effective strategies.

4.3.6 Category Seven – Project Risks

Project risks are determined based on the project information and vulnerabilities outlined in

Category One, the climate hazards established in Category Three, and the neighbourhood risks

identified in Category Four. Project risks for MURBs can pertain to occupants, building and

property assets, building management, or economic factors.

4.3.7 Category Eight – Adaptation Goals

Once the project risks have been determined for each of the critical climate hazards, the project

owner then determines the adaptation goals, taking into consideration the project information

outlined in Category One. Adaptation goals can be occupant-focused, asset-focused, or related

to broader goals such as increasing community resilience.

99
4.3.8 Category Nine – Climate Adaptation Strategies

Development of adaptation strategies would be carried out by the project team based on the

adaptation goals established for each of the critical hazards identified. These strategies could

pertain to the design of the project, operations and management, or relate to leveraging existing

neighbourhood assets determined in Category Five.

4.3.9 Category Ten – Climate Mitigation Goals

Mitigation goals can be mandated by government requirements, based on an institution’s

standards, or determined by the project team. Sub-categories include GHG reduction goals,

embodied carbon reduction goals, renewable energy goals, and other goals.

4.3.10 Category Eleven – Climate Mitigation Strategies

In this section, climate mitigation strategies will be developed by the project team in response to

the mitigation goals established in Category 10. These strategies could pertain to the project site,

building enclosure, building systems, project materials, or operations and management.

4.3.11 Categories Twelve & Thirteen – Evaluation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

In Categories Twelve and Thirteen, proposed adaptation strategies are evaluated with respect to

a series of performance criteria, listed in Table 4.4.

100
Table 4.4 Evaluation Criteria for Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

Evaluation of adaptation strategies Evaluation of mitigation strategies

1.
Climate Mitigation Goals Climate Adaptation Goals
2.
Reliability to Adaptation Goals Reliability to Mitigation Goals
3.
Effectiveness
4.
Construction Costs
5.
Operations Costs
6.
Indirect Costs n/a
7.
Complexity of Implementation
8.
Reliance on External Systems
9.
Alignment with Design and Project Requirements

Climate Mitigation Goals and Adaptation Goals refer to the extent to which a proposed strategy

contributes to the goals established in IBAMA categories Eight and Ten. Reliability to Adaptation

Goals or to Mitigation Goals indicate how reliable a proposed strategy would be. For example, a

management or behavioural solution may be less reliable than a technical solution. Effectiveness

denotes how well a proposed strategy will work. Cost criteria are categorized as Construction

Costs, Operations Costs, and Indirect Costs, which are costs not typically borne by the project such

as health or emergency management costs. Reliance on External Systems indicates how dependent

a strategy is on resources beyond the project boundary such as municipal infrastructure or

community facilities. Lastly, Alignment with Design and Project Requirements refers to how

synergistic a proposed strategy is with respect to other project requirements.

101
4.3.12 Categories Fourteen & Fifteen – Adaptation, Mitigation and Neighbourhood Resilience

The final sections of the initial IBAMA framework attempt to address how a project’s mitigation

and adaptation strategies impact neighbourhood resilience. Proposed adaptation, mitigation and

sustainability strategies would be evaluated to determine how they reduce or increase the level

of neighbourhood resilience.

4.4 Phase Two – Case Study Workshop Feedback

Stakeholder input on the draft framework structure, process and parameters was solicited during

the case study workshop, and in a separate follow-up meeting with BC Housing. 37 industry

experts participated in the case study workshop exercise, with a range of expertise that included

architects, engineers, planners, policy analysts, government representatives, development

representatives, BC Housing staff, landscape architects, environmental health scientists, and PICS

staff. Feedback received pertained to the framework’s parameters, process, format and level of

complexity; integration and implementation of the framework, and other considerations.

4.4.1 Framework Parameters

Workshop participants and BC Housing stakeholders recommended that the following additional

parameters be included in the IBAMA framework:

Category One - Project Information

• Indoor air quality requirements
• Additional resident health parameters
• Level of knowledge and expertise of building management and operations team
• Differences between BC Housing-operated projects and those operated by not-for-profits
who have limited resources

Category Three – Climate Hazards

• Seismic issues (though not a climate hazard, a critical hazard in BC)
102
Category Four - Neighborhood Resilience to Hazards
• Exposure to hazard
• Status of community resilience/ emergency preparedness plan
• Existence of a map of community emergency assets
• City budget or City staff capacity (alternate parameter to # elected officials/resident)
• Level of knowledge and expertise of emergency management/resilience staff
• Hazard-related human resources (alternate to % of residents with a university degree)
• Number and level of resilience of refuge centers, critical facilities and community services
• Number and type of voluntary organizations and faith-based organizations
• Number and type of organizations that provide support and social services
• Community health status and determinants of health
- Mobility of neighbours
- Health vulnerabilities: chronic disease, respiratory illness, dementia, asthma, etc.
- Loneliness/isolation indicator
• Entry points and access to neighbourhood
• Social connectivity and cohesiveness

Categories Twelve & Thirteen – Evaluation of Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

• Cost parameters: cost avoidance, resilience dividends, opportunity costs, total project cost
• Combined cost-benefit & GHG analysis
• Duration of proposed strategy (e.g., how long back-up power will last)
• Safety of strategy
• Occupant comfort
• Equity (considering vulnerable populations, cost burdens to low income residents)
• How the strategy supports social service needs
• Evaluation of social connectivity
• Incentives for mitigation to leverage adaptation and vice-versa
• Enable the project team to rank the evaluation parameters according to their priorities

103
4.4.2 Framework Process

Participants emphasized the need for a more interconnected process when using the framework.

Suggestions included using an iterative process when developing mitigation and adaptation

strategies rather than a parallel process. Linking the evaluation of neighbourhood resilience

parameters to the proposed adaptation strategy was also recommended, as knowledge of the

strategy could influence how the resilience parameter is assessed. Several stakeholders suggested

including a compounding hazards or multi-hazard assessment, and a mechanism to determine

trade-offs and potential maladaptation between adaptation strategies for different hazards.

4.4.3 Framework Format and Complexity

Stakeholders expressed the importance of balancing the framework’s level of complexity with the

skill sets of those using it. BC Housing suggested including a high-level document with provocative

questions and criteria for use by design teams. They recommended that these questions be

“future-proofed” so that the framework could be used over time. Given that each project varies

significantly in terms of location, site, scale and typology, they suggested that IBAMA serve as a

method to explore a range of solutions rather than be prescriptive. However, one stakeholder felt

that some simple prescriptive low-cost strategies should also be included.

Feedback also focused on developing more guidance and tools. Some participants noted that the

IBAMA diagram was difficult to understand and could be simplified to illustrate the workflow

more clearly. Other recommendations included creating step-by-step guidance on how to use the

framework and score the evaluation parameters, as well as clarifying who is responsible for

completing each of the categories. Given that industry knowledge on adaptation and some areas

of mitigation is still nascent, one expert suggested including more explanations and concrete

examples, particularly for less familiar topics such as embodied carbon.

104
4.4.4 Framework Integration and Implementation

BC Housing stakeholders provided input on how to best implement the use of IBAMA and

integrate it within their current standards. One team member advised embedding the framework

within existing BC Housing tools such as their Design Guidelines, which are primarily prescriptive.

Another recommended including some of the framework’s cost parameters into project proformas.

Drawing attention to the co-benefits of IBAMA with respect to other BC Housing goals was also

suggested.

Experts noted that timing and accountability were critical to the success of effective

implementation. They stressed the importance of outlining specific project team member

responsibilities into IBAMA, citing the effectiveness of LEED® in helping teams establish goals and

linking them to specific deliverables at various project phases. Similarly, BC Housing has existing

project milestones and associated deliverables that IBAMA deliverables could be aligned with.

Of significant concern was how the framework could bridge the gap between design, construction,

and operations. Several participants noted the need for building manager and operator training

on the basics of adaptation and mitigation, along with a dedicated IBAMA building manual or

checklist to ensure strategies remain effective throughout project occupancy.

Questions were raised about the logistics of implementing IBAMA given that the framework

straddles the traditional boundaries, scale and scope of multi-unit residential projects. Some felt

that the neighbourhood resilience assessment and identification of neighbourhood assets and risks

should fall under the purview of municipal or regional governments. BC Housing stakeholders

stressed the need to frame the neighbourhood resilience assessment as a tool for general inquiry

from the municipality.

105
4.4.5 Other Considerations

Other considerations included taking into account the soft costs of implementing the framework

when determining budgets for consultant fees, as well as ensuring project development briefs

require that the framework be used early in the design process.

One expert suggested that the framework identify quantifiable outcomes or metrics to establish

the degree of adaptation or resilience of a project, as is the case in sustainability or mitigation

metrics such as LEED® and the BC Energy Step Code. However, given the uncertainty and

variability associated with adaptation, as well the multiple permutations of goals and solutions

that could result from the flexible format of IBAMA, this would involve a separate research

initiative beyond the scope of this project.

4.5 Phase Two – Development of Draft Framework Tools

Following input from the stakeholder workshop and BC Housing meeting, the draft IBAMA

framework tools were developed. These included a high-level short primer, a detailed step-by-

step reference guide, and an Excel-based input tool to accompany the reference guide.

4.5.1 Revised Framework Structure and Parameters

Some adjustments were made to the framework structure and parameters based on feedback

received. The framework process diagram was simplified and organized into twelve parameter

categories, or sequential steps, that are grouped into five stages: A) Information Gathering, B)

Evaluation of Assets and Risks, C) Development of Goals and Strategies, D) Evaluation of

Strategies, and E) Adjustment and re-evaluation of strategies (Figure 4.2). Evaluation of project

strategies’ impacts on neighbourhood resilience was eliminated to contain the project team’s scope

of work, but was suggested by a stakeholder as a topic for future research.

106
Figure 4.2 Updated IBAMA Process Diagram

Other structural adjustments included developing adaptation and mitigation/sustainability goals

concurrently before determining strategies (Steps 8 and 9), evaluating both types of strategies

using integrated criteria (Step 12), enabling project owners to weight specific evaluation criteria

according to their priorities, and emphasis on the iterative nature of the evaluation process

through verification of the strategies at multiple project milestones.

Many of the additional parameters recommended by stakeholders were added, including those

related to health, building management, emergency management, community resources, and cost

metrics. Assessment of compounding hazards and trade-offs between adaptation strategies for

different hazards were also incorporated.

4.5.2 Draft IBAMA Primer

The IBAMA Primer (Appendix A) was developed in response to stakeholder feedback

recommending a short, high-level document to be used as a departure point for project teams to

107
explore mitigation and adaptation goals and strategies. This tool is targeted to those who have

more basic knowledge about mitigation and adaptation. The primer follows the twelve sequential

steps of the framework using a simplified process with a limited amount of analysis. It is to be

used in an early project stakeholder meeting or workshop where teams would collectively

brainstorm, discuss climate mitigation and adaptation issues, and set a direction for the project.

4.5.3 Draft IBAMA Reference Guide

The IBAMA reference guide (Appendix B) is a comprehensive document that provides detailed

guidance on using the framework throughout the pre-design, design, construction and occupancy

phases of multi-unit residential projects. It is organized according to the framework’s steps, and

also includes an introductory section and appendices.

The introductory section provides instructions on how to use the reference guide. It explains the

intent of the framework, overall structure of the document and chapters, and function of the Excel

tool. It also includes a summary of the framework categories and sub-categories, an explanation

of scoring and performance metrics, recommended project team members and integrated team

meetings, associated deliverables for each project phase, and a glossary of terms.

Each of the main sections of the reference guide is structured as follows:

• Section Description – Overview of the purpose, intent and objectives of the section.

• Parameters – Information inputs, assessments or evaluations required. Instructions are

provided on how to complete fields, as well as suggestions for which parties are

responsible for their completion. This information is typically input into the IBAMA Excel

tool and updated as the project evolves.

• Reference Standards – Documents and standards that were used either to help develop

the parameters and/or can serve as references when completing the parameter fields.
108
 • Additional Resources – Additional reference materials and technical resources that may be

helpful for completing inputs or making decisions regarding goals or strategies.

• Case Study Example – Where applicable, a step-by-step example of how parameters

can be completed or developed using a BC Housing project or local case study. Examples

are hypothetical and do not necessarily represent actual project designs or evaluations.

• Recommended Documentation and Deliverables – Suggested deliverables at each project

milestone, and parties responsible for documentation. This includes deliverables during

construction and after project occupancy.

4.5.4 Draft IBAMA Excel Tool

The Excel tool was created as a master document to input project information related to each step

of the IBAMA process. The tool is designed to be used in concert with the reference guide. It is

divided into tabs that follow the twelve sections of the framework. Specific inputs in earlier

sections are linked to subsequent tabs to facilitate assessment and evaluation. Several sections

have pull-down menus where team members are asked to evaluate, rank, or select the most

appropriate option. Selection from a pull-down menu typically translates into a score that is used

as part of the assessment process.

Integrated evaluation of proposed adaptation, mitigation or sustainability strategies is carried

out in Section 12 of the tool. The process involves the project owner first allocating 200 points

across various evaluation criteria in accordance with their highest priorities (Section 12a). There

are 21 evaluation criteria distributed amongst six categories: Climate Adaptation, Climate

Mitigation and Sustainability, Technical Requirements, Project Requirements, Direct Costs, and

Indirect Costs. Supplementary evaluation criteria can be added at the discretion of the project

109
team. Given the intent of IBAMA, a minimum of 25 points each must be allocated to the criteria of

‘Meeting Climate Adaptation Goals’ and ‘Meeting Climate Mitigation and Sustainability Goals’.

The project team then evaluates, on a ranking from high to low, how well a proposed strategy

meets each of the 21 criteria. Once the evaluation is completed, a score is generated for each

strategy and weighted according to the criteria prioritized by the owner. This score also includes

a score for each of the six evaluation criteria categories. Outputs also include a bar chart

comparing the total scores between strategies and a radar chart comparing strategies’ scores in

each criteria category (Figure 4.3). This enables project teams to more objectively identify

whether strategies are synergistic or conflicting with respect to climate mitigation and adaptation

goals.

Figure 4.3 Radar Chart Comparing Adaptation Strategies for a Hazard Scenario

110
4.6 Phase Three – Feedback on Draft Framework Tools

Survey responses and feedback on the draft framework tools emphasized IBAMA’s clarity, logic,

organization, and comprehensiveness. However, there were concerns about the complexity of the

Reference Guide and Excel tool, and whether project teams had sufficient knowledge, time and

financial resources to effectively implement the process. The BC Housing workshop revealed the

opportunity to standardize some components of the framework while still enabling the necessary

flexibility. BC Housing stakeholders also raised relevant questions and suggestions regarding the

implementation of IBAMA on future projects.

4.6.1 Survey – IBAMA Primer

Survey responses generally noted that the IBAMA Primer’s flow, objectives and metrics were clear

and logically organized. There was one suggestion to modify the IBAMA process diagram into an

infographic to make it more accessible to users, and another to separate evaluation of design

strategies from operations and maintenance solutions.

A few respondents highlighted the need to include an introduction outlining the intended use of the

document as well as the overall value proposition. One stakeholder mentioned that the primer

was presented without sufficient context and therefore wouldn’t engage the reader. An

expanded introductory section proving additional context, explicit links to the IBAMA reference

guide and a glossary of terms would help to address these issues.

4.6.2 Survey – IBAMA Reference Guide

While most respondents felt that the reference guide structure was clear and comprehensive,

there were concerns about the document’s length. One stakeholder felt that there were too many

parameters, while another suggested creating an abbreviated version of the reference guide.

111
There were also recommendations to subdivide the evaluation section (Section 12), add graphics

to facilitate wayfinding, and move the blank input tables in each section to an appendix.

There were several comments related to specific content within the reference guide. One

respondent questioned who would fill the role of a neighbourhood representative to assist with

the neighbourhood resilience assessment. Another suggested additional references to BC

standards and requirements to include in the Reference Standards sections, and also questioned the

incorporation of US standards and references. This points to the need to clarify that intended

users of the document can be from jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, and potentially

separately categorize non-Canadian references within each section of the document.

Other suggestions related to content included expanding the introductory section to explain the

value proposition for using IBAMA, requiring concurrent investigation of multiple climate scenarios

in the Climate Parameters section, differentiating slow onset hazards from extreme events,

expanding equity and health criteria, incorporating regenerative potential, and including specific

examples of synergistic strategies.

4.6.3 Survey – IBAMA Excel Tool

Feedback on the Excel tool was similar to that of the Reference Guide. Survey respondents

typically noted that the structure and metrics were clear and had a high level of detail. However,

there was concern that there might be too much detail and time involved in using the tool,

especially if most of the work is intended to be carried out early in the design process.

With respect to content, there were some specific suggestions such as including additional graphic

elements, adding a glossary within the spreadsheet, enabling assessment of bundled groups of

strategies, and incorporating a cost-benefit analysis section.

112
4.6.4 Survey – Effective Implementation of IBAMA

Comments on how to effectively implement the framework pertained to improving education,

instituting mandates, and testing the process through pilots. One respondent noted that the

existing knowledge levels and capacities of design team members may inhibit effective use of the

tools. Another stressed the need for much more training, particularly for building owners who

ultimately drive project decisions. Other stakeholders echoed this viewpoint, but also felt that

regulatory requirements were necessary to drive the process, whether through the building code,

construction permits or BC Housing mandates. Three respondents expressed the importance of

testing IBAMA on a pilot project(s) to determine potential adjustments, as well as to increase

awareness and interest amongst industry stakeholders.

Appropriate timing with respect to project milestones was also discussed. One respondent

emphasized that for effective implementation, IBAMA should be used primarily in the pre-design

phase, either in the development of the project’s program or the owner’s project requirements.

They recommended moving some of the tasks assigned to schematic design or design development

to this earlier phase.

Respondents also noted challenges related to project scope. Some felt it was important to

determine approximate soft costs and time associated with implementing IBAMA, as they could be

significant for a single building or smaller project. One respondent was concerned about who

would complete the neighbourhood level assessment, given it would be outside the scope of a

building design team. To mitigate these scope and cost limitations, another stakeholder suggested

that IBAMA would be more effectively implemented on a larger project such as multi-building

development, or across a portfolio of buildings.

113
4.6.5 Survey – Inclusion of Non-climate Hazards

The question of incorporating non-climate hazards in IBAMA was raised prior to the onset of

COVID-19. BC Housing is already investigating earthquake resilience along with multiple climate

hazards as part of their MBAR process. Interpretation of what constituted a climate hazard was

also mentioned, with one survey participant noting that the World Health Organization

highlighted an increase in infectious diseases that may be linked to climate change (World Health

Organization, 2012). Another respondent indicated that the IBAMA acronym might create

confusion as it doesn’t include the term climate, suggesting that non-climate hazards are already

included in the framework.

Opinions on whether to incorporate non-climate hazards such as COVID-19 into IBAMA were

mixed. Some respondents felt that it would be excessive to include other hazards, given the

breadth and complexity of the current framework design. Other suggestions were to include a

short COVID-related section in the reference guide focusing on neighbourhood parameters, or to

consider pandemics in the Climate Hazards section, perhaps as part of a multi-hazard analysis.

A few stakeholders suggested more detailed recommendations, such as reviewing health

frameworks in order to include additional parameters or adding references to COVID-related

solutions in the Resources section of applicable reference guide chapters. Emphasis on design for

flexibility was mentioned as an important approach to developing pandemic-related solutions.

One respondent remarked that the current format of IBAMA can already help create institutional

knowledge about resources in the building and neighbourhood, which would serve as a reference

for non-climate hazards. They suggested that the IBAMA process require creating a list of these

resources and sharing it with the surrounding community or municipality.

114
4.6.6 BC Housing Workshop Feedback

Feedback from BC Housing stakeholders pertained both to suggested framework modifications

and to effective implementation of IBAMA on future projects.

Recommended modifications to the framework included additional parameters such as more

specific details about zoning and official community plan requirements, desired building features,

and inclusion of an Indigenous lens. To facilitate use of IBAMA, some stakeholders also suggested

standardizing information for BC Housing projects and pre-populating the Excel tool wherever

possible, such as for climate scenarios, lifespan of building components, occupant essential needs,

and for some hazards. However, other participants stressed the need for flexibility based on a

project’s unique circumstances. Finally, participants suggested including more guidance on how to

carry out the hazard assessment, neighbourhood resilience assessment and strategy evaluation

steps of the framework.

Participants also noted the challenge of carrying out neighbourhood resilience assessments. While

this information was deemed to be valuable, BC Housing does not typically have the capacity to

undertake this type of evaluation, nor would all information needed to do so be readily

available. As such, suggestions included a provincial mandate requiring municipalities to report on

neighbourhood resilience, carrying out a partial assessment as part of a project’s community

engagement process, and enabling project teams to prioritize a few key neighbourhood

parameters that they could assess.

For effective implementation of IBAMA, stakeholders recommended including municipal and

provincial governments in next steps to create supporting mandates, as well as professional

organizations who could issue official draft guidelines. Above all, participants felt that testing

IBAMA on a BC Housing pilot project was the appropriate next step towards broad application.
115
4.6.7 Summary of Feedback

Stakeholder feedback on the draft IBAMA tools revealed some key factors necessary for

effective integration of climate mitigation and adaptation considerations into urban multi-unit

residential buildings. These included ensuring that the framework is initially implemented in the

pre-design phase by an integrated project team, testing the framework on pilot projects,

addressing scope issues related to the neighbourhood resilience assessment, and appropriately

allocating the costs of implementing IBAMA into project budgets.

On a broader level, respondents stressed the need for more training on climate adaptation for

owners and project team members, integration of adaptation processes into regulatory

requirements, and increasing promotion within the building industry on the value of integrating

climate mitigation and adaptation.

4.6.8 Final IBAMA Documents

The IBAMA framework documents were revised based on the feedback received in Phase Three.

While many of the suggestions were incorporated, some were beyond the scope of this thesis and

should be developed in future versions of the framework. The revised IBAMA Primer and

Reference Guide can be found in Appendices A and B.

116
Chapter 5: Conclusions

5.1 Discussion

The main objective of this research was to develop a framework and process to support

integrated climate adaptation and mitigation decision-making at the building and neighbourhood

scales, specifically with respect to urban multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs). Research

questions asked how the design process for MURBs could effectively integrate both mitigation and

adaptation considerations, and how interactions between mitigation and adaptation strategies

could be consistently evaluated to inform more integrated and synergistic decision-making. An

integrated building assessment framework, systematic methodology, and tools for evaluating

mitigation and adaptation strategies were successfully developed.

However, striking the appropriate balance between simplicity and sufficient comprehensiveness

was a challenge. Knowledge of adaptation and resilience across the industry is still at an early

stage, where data is limited and where introducing too much complexity may lead to confusion,

and potentially rejection by project teams. Most building projects are staffed with a standard

consultant team that may not have all the expertise needed to carry out a meaningful IBAMA

assessment. In addition, the framework is intended to be used by a comprehensive integrated

project team primarily in early project phases, which traditionally have shorter durations, smaller

budget allocations, and a more restricted number of team members than they do in later phases.

As such, stakeholders will need to shift mindsets and evolve practices to effectively implement

IBAMA. A broader range of expertise is needed as compared to a typical building design and

construction project, which will require adjustments for owners and project teams. This first iteration

of IBAMA will evolve as it is piloted, regional differences are elaborated, traditional project

boundaries are tested, and stakeholder aptitudes are better understood.

117
How the adaptive mitigation process can be effectively implemented and achieve desired

outcomes remains a critical question. Findings from the interviews, survey, and BC Housing

workshop point to challenges such as constraints on project resources; current governance

structures; limited awareness, knowledge and expertise; and outmoded financing, design and

construction processes. This points to the need for additional mandates, initiatives, and resources

from governments; education on adaptive mitigation, and advocacy of alternative project

delivery methods from industry associations; and tools that reduce financial barriers and

demonstrate the value proposition of integrating climate mitigation and adaptation.

5.1.1 Role of Governments

While governments in the two regions investigated have robust climate action plans and

pioneering climate mitigation regulations, emissions reductions from the building sector remain well

below stated targets. Governments have also started to adopt some adaptation and resilience

policies and practices that impact the building scale, primarily in response to hazards that have

already occurred. However, much remains to be carried out in order to integrate long-term

adaptation and resilience into standard design and construction processes.

Governments can accelerate effective implementation of integrated building adaptation and

mitigation in several ways. Overcoming typical siloes between mitigation and adaptation

departments is an important step. While a few stakeholders interviewed felt that keeping them

distinct was necessary, others noted advantages to combining efforts. For example, departmental

integration could help optimize strategies such as New York City’s Cooling Assistance Benefit,

which provides funding for low-income residents to purchase an air conditioner (City of New York,

2020). If adaption and mitigation mandates had been coordinated, more energy efficient cooling

units using less impactful refrigerants could be procured for the program. The City of Vancouver’s

118
One Water cross-departmental water strategy is a useful model for considering how mitigation

and adaptation initiatives could be integrated within government agencies (City of Vancouver,

2019c).

The research revealed that while multi-scalar neighbourhood and infrastructure resilience

assessments are important for developing effective adaptation strategies at the building scale,

there is a scope gap with respect to who should undertake them. Municipal and regional

governments would be best suited to commission these assessments, identify priorities, and fund

improvements to neighbourhood infrastructure and critical facilities to better support building-

scale adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Providing data, standardized tools and financial resources to project teams is another area where

assistance from multiple levels of government is needed. This includes future climate data, hazard

projections and maps that can be used for design purposes, multi-hazard assessment scenarios,

standards such as New York City’s Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines (NYC Mayor’s Office of

Recovery and Resiliency, 2019), and financially-oriented incentives to help offset potential cost

increases.

For effective implementation, data and incentives should be coupled with well-crafted mandates,

such as requiring an integrated climate adaptation–mitigation brief as part of the development

permitting process, as well as adequate enforcement measures (Neuberger, 2018). In addition,

municipalities should ensure that there is an expedient mechanism for resolving regulatory conflicts

and identifying potential modifications, whether they be between mitigation and adaptation

requirements, or with respect to other types of building regulations.

119
5.1.2 Role of Industry Associations

The research findings exposed the need for modifications to traditional building design and

construction processes in order to increase the chances of achieving integrated adaptation and

mitigation objectives. Echoing conclusions found in the literature (Darko & Chan, 2017; Franz et

al., 2017; Li et al., 2019; Venkataraman & Cheng, 2018), this involves front-loading the design

process, early goal setting, greater project team integration, and higher levels of communication

amongst team members. Industry associations can help shift the current paradigm by promoting,

demystifying and incentivizing the use of alternative project delivery methods (Ebrahimi, 2018;

Gunhan, 2019) that facilitate a more integrated approach. These methods enable early inclusion

of the contractor or construction manager, greater weighting of consultant fees to early project

stages, more iterative cost modeling, and alternative contractual relationships.

The expert interviews and survey revealed that insufficient awareness, education and training

were also significant obstacles to implementation. An understanding of adaptation and resilience

is still nascent among design professionals and owners, as are aspects of climate mitigation such

as embodied carbon. Similar to efforts made to advance green building education, industry

associations are well positioned to create and provide training and accreditation programs on

adaptive mitigation using resources such as IBAMA and the array of documents that helped inform

its development.

5.1.3 Financial Considerations

IBAMA was conceived to enable development for a range of mitigation and adaptation goals

and strategies in response to the unique context of each project. This flexibility is particularly

important for affordable housing projects, which often have constrained construction and/or

operating budgets. In order to manage costs, proposed solutions can be design or operations-

120
related and can leverage community assets through a better understanding of the neighbourhood.

While this flexible approach can help minimize additional construction costs, it does expand the

pre-design process and can increase consultant fees. Though these fees are relatively small as

compared to overall construction costs, implementing IBAMA may exceed typical fee allocations,

particularly those for pre-design and early design phases. General contractors would likely add

a separate documentation fee during construction, as is typically done on LEED® projects.

This points to the need for financial tools and case study examples that can more clearly

articulate to owners the value proposition of implementing integrated mitigation and adaptation

on projects. Mitigation and some sustainability goals are often mandated, with associated costs

already built into project budgets. Proposed mitigation strategies can also be assessed using

lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) tools based on energy cost savings paybacks. However, financial

assessment of adaptation and resilience strategies is more challenging and includes factors such

as the probability and degree of future damage, costs associated with potential loss of use,

future benefits, and external societal costs not borne directly by the owner or developer.

Governments, the insurance industry, and building industry associations can partner to develop

standards, economic analysis tools, and case studies to help building owners better understand the

related costs, benefits, and risks of various adaptation and resilience approaches. Furthermore,

insurance models need to shift towards addressing risk over the full lifespan of a building and

incentivize implementation of resilient design strategies through reductions in insurance premiums.

By exploring the relationship between the building and its surrounding neighbourhood, the IBAMA

process also reveals questions about where a community’s financial resources should be allocated.

Does it make more sense for a few new buildings to be highly resilient, to make broader but less

resilient improvements to existing buildings within the neighbourhood, or to levy a tax to develop

121
a local resilience hub? In addition, which parties bear the costs of which adaptation and resilience

measures requires negotiation. For example, if a neighbourhood’s stormwater system is aging and

outdated, do the building owners bear the cost of additional flood resilience measures to protect

their asset? Can a new building support an aging neighbourhood by providing a resilience space

for emergency management in exchange for lower property taxes? While answers will vary

depending upon the regional context and governance structure, IBAMA’s neighbourhood resilience

analysis component can serve as a starting point for these discussions.

5.1.4 Considerations for Initial Implementation

As was the case with the first green building projects, implementing IBAMA will likely require more

effort and entail higher costs for early adopters. Because of this, it might be practical to initially

employ it on larger projects that inherently benefit from more resources, economies of scale, and

more sophisticated project management systems. On larger projects, additional consultant fees

can be more easily absorbed and typically represent a smaller percentage of total project costs.

Multi-building developments would be ideal for early implementation of IBAMA as they also

broach the neighbourhood and infrastructure scales, enabling better trials of the neighbourhood

resilience assessment. Early implementation of IBAMA may also be suited for owners and public

agencies with portfolios of projects or buildings, where analysis and lessons learned on one

project could be more broadly applied, and where projects could serve as a testing ground prior

to developing broader mandates. However, established institutional procurement processes may

impede implementation on larger scale and/or public projects (Ebrahimi, 2018).

5.2 Research Limitations

There were various limitations to the scope of this research that can point to opportunities for

further investigation. Documents reviewed were those typically used in U.S. and Canadian

122
contexts. Policy documents primarily focused on British Columbia, with select evaluation of policies

in New York City and Toronto. A review of documents from other leading-edge regions,

particularly those in Europe and Asia, would help to refine and enrich the IBAMA framework.

Although there were 22 interview subjects, they were still limited in number given the breadth of

industry expertise being sought out. As such, there was only partial redundancy of expert type

(e.g. architect, engineer, owner, etc.), which likely resulted in some degree of bias and a lack of

diversity in perspectives. In addition, contractor, building management and resident stakeholders

were not represented. Those interviewed were deemed to be experts about mitigation and/or

adaptation and were situated in regions noted to be at the leading-edge in the advancement of

climate policy. Interviews with less experienced stakeholders, those in construction and operations,

and experts from other regions, especially ones that have experienced severe hazard events,

would provide additional insights. These stakeholders may have other perspectives regarding

IBAMA’s complexity, how it could be applied in less advanced climate policy contexts, and about

effective approaches or lessons learned during the construction and occupancy phases of a

project.

Another limitation is the extent to which the framework’s methodology can be generalized. IBAMA

was conceived as a climate-focused framework that targets new multi-unit residential buildings.

While it can be adjusted to assess existing MURBs through some minor changes, modifications

related to other building and hazard types would require additional research to adequately

adapt the process and parameters.

Practical limitations may also exist that restrict effective implementation of IBAMA. These include

the lack of available data in some regions, especially at the neighbourhood scale, which would

inhibit a thorough assessment and where further research is merited.

123
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research

Development of IBAMA was a first attempt to provide an integrated framework for implementing

building-scale mitigation and adaptation strategies. In addition to the suggestions outlined in

Section 5.2, there are multiple research opportunities that can stem from this work. A logical next

step would be case study research (Groat & Wang, 2013) on the application of IBAMA to

project pilots, in order to understand the effectiveness of the framework over the course a

building design and construction process. Testing the applicability of the framework across a

range of physical contexts, hazards, and building typologies would enable further refinement,

development of additional parameters, and potentially result in broader applicability. Case

study research would facilitate documentation of detailed examples of interactions between

mitigation and adaptation strategies. The effectiveness of these strategies could also be assessed

with respect to differences in climate, region, building type and associated infrastructure.

Further investigation of the framework’s parameters and evaluation metrics is also needed. This

includes how to more objectively assess specific neighbourhood resilience parameters, as well as

proposed mitigation and adaptation strategies. Information is also lacking on methods to

appropriately weight hazard assessment criteria. While a points-based rating system may not

necessarily be suitable, there is also demand for research into quantifiable metrics or outcomes

that help assess the overall resilience of a building with respect to various hazards.

Lastly, research on interactions between the building and neighbourhood scales should be

expanded. For example, the initial IBAMA framework structure included steps to determine how

the outcomes of a building project contributed to, or detracted from, the resilience of a

neighbourhood. While these steps were eliminated due to scope limitations, understanding the

nexus between residents, buildings and their neighbourhoods was found to be important for

124
optimizing mitigation and adaptation solutions. In particular, the role of and requirements for

neighbourhood resilience hubs, community centres and critical facilities merits further investigation.

A regenerative design approach (Cole, 2012) would be beneficial for deeper explorations into

building-neighbourhood dynamics.

5.4 Conclusion

Conflicts between adaptation and mitigation strategies are already occurring, whether they

pertain to flood protection materials that contain high embodied carbon emissions, building

electrification strategies that don’t adequately consider power infrastructure resilience, or

installation of cooling systems without passive design measures that first reduce loads. Building

systems may be designed to be highly integrated and efficient but lack the necessary redundancy

to minimize risks, or conversely, be overly redundant and result in high environmental impacts.

While not all solutions can be synergistic, frameworks such as IBAMA will help raise important

questions and expose the trade-offs and challenges associated with addressing the wicked

problem of climate change. In addition, combining adaptation and mitigation can also help

leverage one paradigm to support the other.

Perhaps the most salient insight from the adaptive mitigation research process is the need to shift

from a primarily boundary-based design approach towards a linkages-based model that helps

to strengthen relationships between people, buildings, their neighbourhoods and the infrastructure

that serves them. While the realities of typical project sites, scopes, budgets and schedules

necessitate that boundaries be established, more clearly positioning a building and its occupants

as participants within a greater system will help prioritize how to best allocate limited resources

and expand the thinking required to develop more effective climate solutions.

125
Bibliography

Adabre, M. A., & Chan, A. P. C. (2019). Critical success factors (CSFs) for sustainable affordable
housing. Building and Environment, 156(March), 203–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.04.030
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human
Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Alliance for National and Community Resilience. (2019). The Community Resilience Benchmarks.
Retrieved from http://media.iccsafe.org/2016_MarComm/16-
13282_GR_ANCR_Website/pdf/ANCR_Merged.pdf
Almufti, I., Willford, M., Delucchi, M., Davis, C., Hanson, B., Langdon, D., … Mote, T. (2013). REDi
Rating System. Retrieved from
https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/redi-rating-system
Amaru, S., & Chhetri, N. B. (2013). Climate adaptation: Institutional response to environmental
constraints, and the need for increased flexibility, participation, and integration of
approaches. Applied Geography, 39, 128–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.006
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2017). Sustainability.
In 2017 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals (pp. 35.1-35.12). Atlanta, GA: American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1xhr7d5.38
ARUP, & The Rockefeller Foundation. (2016). City Resilience Index: Understanding and Measuring
City Resilience. ARUP International Development, 47. https://doi.org/London, United Kingdom
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. (n.d.). Healthcare and Public Health Risk
Identification and Site Criticality (RISC) Toolkit Threat / Hazard Assessment Module (THAM).
Bagheri, M., Delbari, S. H., Pakzadmanesh, M., & Kennedy, C. A. (2019). City-integrated
renewable energy design for low-carbon and climate-resilient communities. Applied Energy,
239, 1212–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.031
Bartos, M., Chester, M., Johnson, N., Gorman, B., Eisenberg, D., Linkov, I., & Bates, M. (2016).
Impacts of rising air temperatures on electric transmission ampacity and peak electricity load
in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 1–13. Retrieved from
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114008/pdf
BC Housing. (2019). Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR). Retrieved July 8,
2020, from https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-
construction/MBAR
BC Ministry of Environment. (2010). Preparing for Climate Change: British Columbia’s Adaptation
Strategy. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310640
BC Ministry of Environment. (2016). Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia: Update
2016. https://doi.org/ISBN 0-7726-4732-1
BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2019). Preliminary Strategic Climate
Risk Assessment for British Columbia.
Berawi, M. A., Basten, V., Latief, Y., & Crévits, I. (2020). Role of green building developer and
owner in sustainability construction: Investigating the relationships between green building
key success factors and incentives. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
426(1), 0–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/426/1/012061

126
Blackwelder, A. (2019, February 20). Revised LEED Resilient Design pilot credits now available .
Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://www.usgbc.org/articles/revised-leed-resilient-
design-pilot-credits-now-available
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk - Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.
Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D. M., Ummenhofer, T., & Zinke, T. (2014). Resilience and sustainability of
civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20(2), 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177
Bonham, M. Ben. (2013). Leading by example: New professionalism and the government client.
Building Research and Information, 41(1), 77–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.743251
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brown, T. W., Bischof-Niemz, T., Blok, K., Breyer, C., Lund, H., & Mathiesen, B. V. (2018). Response
to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-
electricity systems.’ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92(February), 834–847.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.113
Burroughs, S. (2017). Development of a Tool for Assessing Commercial Building Resilience.
Procedia Engineering, 180, 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.263
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. (2018). Adaptation and Mitigation Interaction Assessment
(AMIA) tool. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Adaptation-and-Mitigation-Interaction-
Assessment-AMIA-tool?language=en_US
Campos, I., Vizinho, A., Coelho, C., Alves, F., Truninger, M., Pereira, C., … Penha Lopes, G.
(2016). Participation, scenarios and pathways in long-term planning for climate change
adaptation. Planning Theory and Practice, 17(4), 537–556.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1215511
Canadian Wood Council. (2018). Mid-Rise Best Practice Guide.
Carou, F. (2016). Minimum backup power guidelines for MURBs. Toronto. Retrieved from
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/91ca-Minimum-Backup-Power-
Guideline-for-MURBs-October-2016.pdf
CDP. (2019). Cities A List 2019. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from
https://www.cdp.net/en/cities/cities-scores#46f3ea056caa3126b91f3f70beea068c
Champagne, C. L., & Aktas, C. B. (2016). Assessing the Resilience of LEED Certified Green
Buildings. Procedia Engineering, 145, 380–387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.095
Chang, S. E., Yip, J. Z. K., & Tse, W. (2018). Effects of urban development on future multi-hazard
risk: the case of Vancouver, Canada. Natural Hazards, (0123456789).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3510-x
Charoenkit, S., & Kumar, S. (2014). Environmental sustainability assessment tools for low carbon
and climate resilient low income housing settlements. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 38, 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.012
Cherry, E., & Petronis, J. (2016). Architectural Programming. Retrieved July 9, 2020, from
https://www.wbdg.org/design-disciplines/architectural-programming
Christensen, P. H., Robinson, S. J., & Simons, R. A. (2018). The influence of energy considerations
on decision making by institutional real estate owners in the U.S. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.061

127
Christiansen, L., Martinez, G., & Naswa, P. (Eds.). (2018). Development of universal metrics for
adaptation effectiveness. Adaptation metrics: Perspectives on measuring, aggregating and
comparing adaptation results. Copenhagen, DK: UNEP DTU Partnership.
Cimellaro, G. P., Asce, A. M., Renschler, C., Reinhorn, A. M., Asce, F., & Arendt, L. (2016).
PEOPLES: A Framework for Evaluating Resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(10),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001514
City of New York. (n.d.). Our Current Affordable Housing Crisis. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/housing/problem/problem.page
City of New York. (2020). Cooling Assistance Benefit. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from
https://access.nyc.gov/programs/cooling-assistance-benefit/
City of Vancouver. (2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Vancouver-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Strategy-2012-11-
07.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2015). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest-city-action-plan.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2016). Zero Emissions Building Plan. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/zero-emissions-building-plan.pdf
City of Vancouver. Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning - Process and Requirements (2017).
Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
http://bylaws.vancouver.ca/Bulletin/G002_2017April28.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2017b). Renewable City Action Plan. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/renewable-city-action-plan-november-2017.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2017c). Resilient Neighbourhoods Program: Kick-off Workshop Report.
Vancouver, BC.
City of Vancouver. (2018a). 2018 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Update. Vancouver, BC.
Retrieved from
https://council.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20181205/documents/cfsc1.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2018b). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - 2017-2018 Implementation Update.
Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/greenest-city-action-plan-
implementation-update-2017-2018.pdf
City of Vancouver. Higher Buildings Policy (2018). Vancouver, BC: Vancouver City Council.
Retrieved from https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/H005.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2018d). Vancouver’s Changing Shoreline. City of Vancouver. Retrieved from
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouvers-changing-shoreline.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2019a). Climate Emergency Response. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
https://council.vancouver.ca/20190424/documents/cfsc1.pdf
City of Vancouver. (2019b). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - 2018-2019 Implementation Update.
Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/vancouvers-climate-
emergency.aspx?utm_campaign=climate-
emergency&utm_medium=Vanity&utm_source=climate-emergency_Vanity#redirect
City of Vancouver. (2019c). One Water. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/one-water.aspx
City of Vancouver. (2019d). Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/resilient-neighbourhoods-program.aspx#toolkit
City of Vancouver. (2019e). Resilient Vancouver Strategy. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
https://council.vancouver.ca/20190423/documents/rr1.pdf
Cole, R. J. (2012). Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Building Research and
Information, 40(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.610608
128
Collier, F., Hambling, J., Kernaghan, S., Kovacevic, B., Miller, R., Pérez, A. P., … Macmillan, S.
(2014). Tomorrow’s cities: a framework to assess urban resilience. Urban Design and
Planning, 167(DP2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.13.00019
Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2014). The geographies of community disaster resilience.
Global Environmental Change, 29, 65–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-
based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global
Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
Dang, H. H., Michaelowa, A., & Tuan, D. D. (2003). Synergy of adaptation and mitigation
strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy,
3S1, S81–S96.
Darko, A., & Chan, A. P. C. (2017). Review of Barriers to Green Building Adoption. Sustainable
Development, 25(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1651
Davis, L. W., & Gertler, P. J. (2015). Contribution of air conditioning adoption to future energy
use under global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(19), 5962–
5967. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423558112
Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., … Faehnle, M. (2014).
Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of
green urban infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 107–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025
Doan, D. T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., & Tookey, J.
(2017, October 1). A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Building and
Environment. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.007
Dosa, D., Hyer, K., Thomas, K., Swaminathan, S., Feng, Z., Brown, L., & Mor, V. (2012). To
evacuate or shelter in place: Implications of universal hurricane evacuation policies on nursing
home residents. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 190.e1-190.e7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2011.07.011
Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., & Van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Climate change mitigation and
adaptation in the land use sector: From complementarity to synergy. Environmental
Management, 54(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0331-x
Dyer, G., & Dyer, M. (2017). Strategic leadership for sustainability by higher education: the
American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 140, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.08.077
Ebrahimi, G. (2018). Stakeholder Perspectives on Adoption of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). The
University of British Columbia.
Engel-Yan, J., Kennedy, C., Saiz, S., & Pressnail, K. (2005). Toward sustainable neighbourhoods:
the need to consider infrastructure interactions. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32,
45–57. https://doi.org/10.1139/L04-116
Engineers Canada. (2016). Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC)
Assessment Protocol. Retrieved from https://pievc.ca/documents
Enright, P. (2018). Proposed Energy Efficiency and Water Updates to the Vancouver Building By-
law and Rezoning Policy. City of Vancouver. Retrieved from
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/final-consultation-letter-energy-and-water-updates-to-
bylaw-and-rezoning-policy.pdf

129
Enterprise Community Partners. (2015a). 2015 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/sites/default/files/media-library/solutions-and-
innovation/green/ecp-2015-criteria-manual-11-15.pdf
Enterprise Community Partners. (2015b). Ready to Respond - Strategies for Multifamily Building
Resilience. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/download?fid=2154&nid=4325
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2010). Natural Hazards and Sustainability for
Residential Buildings (FEMA P-798). Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/19750
FireSmart Canada. (n.d.). FireSmart Home Development Guide. Retrieved from
https://www.firesmartcanada.ca/mdocs-posts/firesmart-home-development-guide/
Ford, J. D., & Berrang-Ford, L. (2016). The 4Cs of adaptation tracking: consistency, comparability,
comprehensiveness, coherency. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,
21(6), 839–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9627-7
Franz, B., Leicht, R., Molenaar, K., & Messner, J. (2017). Impact of Team Integration and Group
Cohesion on Project Delivery Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 143(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001219
Glaeser, E. L., Kahn, M. E., & Rappaport, J. (2008). Why do the poor live in cities? The role of
public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.12.004
Göpfert, C., Wamsler, C., & Lang, W. (2019). A framework for the joint institutionalization of
climate change mitigation and adaptation in city administrations. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 24, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-018-9789-9
Gorman, J. D. (2020, February 6). Environmental Groups Seek to Stop NYC Seawall Construction.
Courthouse News Services. Retrieved from https://www.courthousenews.com/environmental-
groups-seek-to-stop-nyc-seawall-construction/
Government of British Columbia. (2016). Climate Leadership Plan.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0637(99)00042-4
Government of British Columbia. (2017). BC Energy Step Code - A Best Practices Guide for Local
Governments.
Grafakos, S., Trigg, K., Landauer, M., Chelleri, L., & Dhakal, S. (2019). Analytical framework to
evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in cities. Climatic
Change, 154(1–2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02394-w
Graves, R., Weber, W., & Kutschke, L. (2018). Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Buildings. Saint
Paul, Minnesota.
Green Business Certification Inc. (2018). PEER Rating System.
Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2013). Case studies and combined strategies. In Architectural research
methods (pp. 415–451). Retrieved from
https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=cat00006a&AN=melb.b4817576&scope=site
Gunhan, S. (2019). Analyzing Sustainable Building Construction Project Delivery Practices:
Builders’ Perspective. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 24(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000397
Gurstein, P., LaRocque, E., & MacDonald, R. (2018). No Vacancy. High Rent. Low Vacancy.
Growing Homelessness, 34.

130
Hamin, E. M., & Gurran, N. (2009). Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and
mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International, 33(3), 238–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.005
Han, H. (2019). Governance for green urbanisation: Lessons from Singapore’s green building
certification scheme. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 37(1), 137–156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418778596
Haynes, K., Coates, L., Leigh, R., Handmer, J., Whittaker, J., Gissing, A., … Opper, S. (2009).
“Shelter-in-place” vs. evacuation in flash floods. Environmental Hazards, 8(4), 291–303.
https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2009.0022
Hills, J. M., Μichalena, E., & Chalvatzis, K. J. (2018). Innovative technology in the Pacific: Building
resilience for vulnerable communities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
129(February), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.008
Holden, M., Li, C., & Molina, A. (2015). The emergence and spread of ecourban neighbourhoods
around the world. Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(9), 11418–11437.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su70911418
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 4, 1–23.
Hosseini, S., Barker, K., & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2016). A review of definitions and measures of
system resilience. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 145, 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.006
Hrabovszky-Horváth, S., Pálvölgyi, T., Csoknyai, T., & Talamon, A. (2013). Generalized
residential building typology for urban climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies:
The case of Hungary. Energy & Buildings, 62, 475–485.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.011
Hui Liu, S., Rahmawati, Y., & Amila Wan Abdullah Zawawi, N. (2019). Critical success factors of
collaborative approach in delivering sustainable construction. MATEC Web of Conferences,
270, 05003. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201927005003
Hunt, A., & Watkiss, P. (2011). Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the
literature. Climatic Change, 104, 13–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6
Hurricane Sandy’s Impact, By The Numbers. (2013, October 29). Retrieved March 9, 2019, from
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/hurricane-sandy-impact-
infographic_n_4171243.html
Hussain, A., Bui, V. H., & Kim, H. M. (2019). Resilience-Oriented Optimal Operation of Networked
Hybrid Microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(1), 204–215.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2017.2737024
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. (2018). ENVISION - Sustainable Infrastructure Framework.
Washington, DC: Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. Retrieved from
www.sustainableinfrastructure.org
Insurance Information Institute. (2020). Facts + Statistics: U.S. catastrophes. Retrieved April 5,
2019, from https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). (2019). The FORTIFIED HomeTM–Hurricane
standard. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). Retrieved from
https://disastersafety.org/wp-content/uploads/FORTIFIED-Home-Hurricane-Standards-
2019.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (n.d.). IPCC DDC Glossary. Retrieved July 24, 2020,
from https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/glossary/glossary_r.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, & Houghton, J. T. (1990). IPCC first assessment
report. Geneva.
131
International Code Council. (2018). International Energy Conservation Code Adoption Map.
Retrieved September 8, 2019, from https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-
content/uploads/Code_Adoption_Maps.pdf
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2000). Disaster Emergency
Needs Assessment - Disaster Preparedness Training Programme.
International Living Future Institute. (2014). Living Building Challenge 3.0. Seattle, WA:
International Living Future Institute. Retrieved from http://living-
future.org/sites/default/files/reports/FINAL LBC 3_0_WebOptimized_low.pdf
Keating, A., Campbell, K., Mechler, R., Magnuszewski, P., Mochizuki, J., Liu, W., … McQuistan, C.
(2017). Disaster resilience: what it is and how it can engender a meaningful change in
development policy. Development Policy Review, 35(1), 65–91.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12201
Keenan, J. M. (2014). Material and Social Construction: A Framework for the Adaptation of
Buildings. Enquiry: A Journal for Architectural Research, 11(1), 18–32.
https://doi.org/10.17831/enq:arcc.v11i1.271
Keenan, J. M. (2016). From sustainability to adaptation: Goldman Sachs corporate real estate
strategy. Building Research and Information, 44(4), 407–422.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1085260
Kesik, T., & O’Brien, L. (2017). MURB Design Guide. Toronto. Retrieved from
https://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/faculty/kesik_t/MURB-Design-Guide/MURB-Design-Guide-
v1.0-Jan2017.pdf
Kontokosta, C. E., & Malik, A. (2018). The Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index :
Applying big data to benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 36, 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.025
Krause, R. M. (2011). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate
protection initiatives by u.s. cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45–60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00510.x
Kurth, M. H., Keenan, J. M., Sasani, M., & Linkov, I. (2019). Defining resilience for the US building
industry. Building Research and Information, 47(4), 480–492.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1452489
Kwok, A. H., Paton, D., Becker, J., Hudson-doyle, E. E., & Johnston, D. (2018). A bottom-up
approach to developing a neighbourhood-based resilience measurement framework.
Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-07-
2017-0169
Landauer, M., Juhola, S., & Klein, J. (2019). The role of scale in integrating climate change
adaptation and mitigation in cities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
62(5), 741–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1430022
Landauer, M., Juhola, S., & Söderholm, M. (2015). Inter-relationships between adaptation and
mitigation: a systematic literature review. Climatic Change, 131(4), 505–517.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1395-1
Laukkonen, J., Blanco, P. K., Lenhart, J., Keiner, M., Cavric, B., & Kinuthia-Njenga, C. (2009).
Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level. Habitat
International, 33(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.003
Lee, S., & Lee, B. (2014). The influence of urban form on GHG emissions in the U.S. household
sector. Energy Policy, 68, 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.024
Li, Y., Song, H., Sang, P., Chen, P. H., & Liu, X. (2019). Review of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for
green building projects. Building and Environment, 158(January), 182–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.020
132
Liang, S., & Fu, Y. (2018). Otter.ai [Computer Software].
Lindell, M. K. (2019). Emergency Management: Shelter In-Place. In Encyclopedia of Security and
Emergency Management (pp. 1–5). Springer Nature.
Lu, Y., Sood, T., Chang, R., & Liao, L. (2020). Factors impacting integrated design process of net
zero energy buildings: an integrated framework. International Journal of Construction
Management, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1742625
Magnan, A. (2014). Avoiding maladaptation to climate change: towards guiding principles.
SAPIENS, 7(1), 1–10.
Marchese, D., Reynolds, E., Bates, M. E., Morgan, H., Clark, S. S., & Linkov, I. (2018). Resilience
and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications.
Science of the Total Environment, 613–614, 1275–1283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.086
Matthews, E. C., Friedland, C. J., & Orooji, F. (2016). Integrated environmental sustainability and
resilience assessment model for coastal flood hazards. Journal of Building Engineering, 8,
141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.08.002
Matthews, E. C., Sattler, M., & Friedland, C. J. (2014). A critical analysis of hazard resilience
measures within sustainability assessment frameworks. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 48, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.05.003
Mcevoy, D., Lindley, S., & Handley Obe, J. (2006). Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas:
synergies and conflicts. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer,
159(4), 185–191. Retrieved from http://www.adamproject.eu
McKibbin, W. J., & Wilcoxen, P. J. (2004). Climate policy and uncertainty: the roles of adaptation
versus mitigation. Brookings Discussion Papers in Internation Economics, (161), 1–21. Retrieved
from file:///Articles/2004/McKibbin/Brookings Discussion Papers in Internation Eco-2.pdf
Meacham, B. J. (2016). Sustainability and resiliency objectives in performance building
regulations. Building Research & Information, 44(5–6), 474–489.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1142330
Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2016). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why?
Urban Geography, 00(00), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1206395
Metro Vancouver. (2016). Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-
quality/AirQualityPublications/ClimateProjectionsForMetroVancouver.pdf
Mutani, G., & Todeschi, V. (2018). Energy resilience, vulnerability and risk in urban spaces.
Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, 6(4), 694–
709. https://doi.org/10.13044/J.SDEWES.D6.0211
National Institute for Standards and Technology. (2016). Community Resilience Planning Guide for
Buildings and Infrastructure Systems Volume II. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v2
Neuberger, M. (2018). Renovation Permits and the Challenge of Reducing Emissions from Legacy
Buildings. The University of British Columbia.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection. (2015). NYC Green Infrastructure: 2015
Annual Report.
New York City Housing Authority. (2019). Sheltering Seniors from Extreme Heat. New York City.
New York City Mayor’s Office. (2019). OneNYC 2050 - A Liveable Climate (Vol. 7). New York
City.
New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. (2016). New York City’s Roadmap to 80 x50,
133. Retrieved from
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/New York City’s
Roadmap to 80 x 50_20160926_FOR WEB.pdf
133
Norman, J., MacLean, H. L., & Kennedy, C. A. (2006). Comparing High and Low Residential
Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Journal of Urban
Planning and Development, 132(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9488(2006)132:1(10)
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to
Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
NYC Department of City Planning. (2017). NYC Flood Hazard Mapper. Retrieved June 19, 2020,
from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/flood-hazard-mapper.page
NYC Department of City Planning. (2019). Zoning for Coastal Flood Resiliency. New York City.
Retrieved from www.nyc.gov/zcfr
NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. (2019). Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines -
Version 3.0. New York City. Retrieved from
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/NYC_Climate_Resiliency_Design_Guidelines_v3-
0.pdf
Onat, N. C., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Towards greening the U.S. residential building
stock.A system dynamics approach. Building and Environment, 78, 68–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.030
Ortiz, L., González, J. E., & Lin, W. (2018). Climate change impacts on peak building cooling
energy demand in a coastal megacity. Environmental Research Letters, 13(9), 094008.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad8d0
Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. (2020). Opportunity Projects Program. Retrieved July 8,
2020, from https://pics.uvic.ca/programs/opportunity-projects-program
Palermo, V., Walsh, C. L., Dawson, R. J., Fichera, A., & Inturri, G. (2018). Multi-sector mitigation
strategies at the neighbourhood scale. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 893–902.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.223
Passive House Institute. (2016). Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low Energy
Building Standard v.9f. Darmstadt, Germany. Retrieved from www.passivehouse.com
Phillips, R., Troup, L., Fannon, D., & Eckelman, M. J. (2017). Do resilient and sustainable design
strategies conflict in commercial buildings? A critical analysis of existing resilient building
frameworks and their sustainability implications. Energy and Buildings, 146, 295–311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.009
QSR International LLC. (2018). NVivo 12 Pro Qualitative Data Analysis [Computer Software].
Qualtrics. (2019). Qualtrics XM [Computer Software]. Provo, Utah.
Rajkovich, N. B., Tuzzo, M. E., Heckman, N., Gilman, K. M. E., Bohm, M., & Tanner, H.-R. (2018).
Climate Resilience Strategies for Buildings in New York State. Albany, NY. Retrieved from
http://ap.buffalo.edu/content/dam/ap/PDFs/NYSERDA/Climate-Resilience-Strategies-for-
Buildings.pdf
Raouf, A. M., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2019). Effectiveness of Project Delivery Systems in Executing
Green Buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(10), 03119005.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001688
Redman, C. L. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits?
Ecology and Society, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06390-190237
Retzlaff, R. C. (2008). Green building assessment systems: A framework and comparison for
planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 505–519.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802380290

134
Retzlaff, R. C. (2009). The Use of LEED in Planning and Development Regulation. Journal of
Planning and Education Research, 29, 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X09340578
Roostaie, S., Nawari, N., & Kibert, C. J. (2019). Sustainability and resilience: A review of
definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment
framework. Building and Environment, 154(March), 132–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.042
Rose, A., & Liao, S. (2005). Modeling Regional Economic Resilience to Disasters: A Computable
General Equilibrium Analysis of Water Service Disruptions. Journal of Regional Science, 45,
75–112.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W. D., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S., Dhakal, S., & Ali Ibrahim, S.
(2018). Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change
Research Network. In C. Rosenzweig, W. D. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S.
Dhakal, & S. Ali Ibrahim (Eds.) (p. 811). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316563878
Sample, J. E., Duncan, N., Ferguson, M., & Cooksley, S. (2015). Scotland’s hydropower: Current
capacity, future potential and the possible impacts of climate change. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.071
Satow, J. (2013, January 11). Post-Sandy the Generator Is Machine of the Moment - The New
York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/realestate/post-sandy-the-generator-is-machine-
of-the-moment.html
Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Semistructured Interviewing. In Essential
Ethnographic Methods (pp. 149–164). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Senate Canada. (2018). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission from Canada’s Built Environment.
Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from sencanada.ca/en/Committees/enev/Reports/42-1
Sharifi, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological
Indicators, 69, 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023
Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2014). Major Principles and Criteria for Development of an Urban
Resilience Assessment Index. In ICUE 2014 (pp. 19–21).
Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., & Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability
transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian
communities. Global Environmental Change, 25(1), 41–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.002
Solecki, W., Seto, K. C., Balk, D., Bigio, A., Boone, C. G., Creutzig, F., … Zwickel, T. (2015). A
conceptual framework for an urban areas typology to integrate climate change mitigation
and adaptation. Urban Climate, 14, 116–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.07.001
Spencer, B., Lawler, J., Lowe, C., Thompson, L. A., Hinckley, T., Kim, S. H., … Voss, J. (2017). Case
studies in co-benefits approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4), 647–667.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168287
Tang, Z., Dai, Z., Fu, X., & Li, X. (2013). Content analysis for the U.S. coastal states’ climate action
plans in managing the risks of extreme climate events and disasters. Ocean and Coastal
Management, 80, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.04.004

135
Taylor, A., Downing, J., Hassan, B., Denton, F., & Downing, T. E. (2007). Supplementary material to
chapter 18: Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In M. L. Parry, O. F.
Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 745). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
The City of New York. (2016). 2016 Energy Conservation Code. Retrieved November 3, 2019,
from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/buildings/codes/energy-conservation-code.page
The City of New York. (2017a). Cool Neighborhoods NYC. New York City. Retrieved from
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/Cool_Neighborhoods_NYC_Report_FINAL.pdf
The City of New York. (2017b). Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2016.
New York City. Retrieved from
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/GHG Inventory
Report Emission Year 2016.pdf
The City of New York. (2018a). NYC Recovery - Sandy Funding Tracker Maps. Retrieved
November 5, 2019, from https://www1.nyc.gov/content/sandytracker/pages/interactive-
maps
The City of New York. (2018b). OneNYC - 2018 Progress Report. New York City. Retrieved from
https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OneNYC_Progress_2018-
2.pdf
The New York City Council. New York City - Local Law 31 (2016). New York City, United States:
New York City Council.
The New York City Council. New York City - Local Law 32 (2016). New York City: New York City
Council.
Tol, R. S. J. (2005). Adaptation and mitigation: Trade-offs in substance and methods.
Environmental Science and Policy, 8(6), 572–578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.011
U.S. Green Building Council. (2016a). LEED Pilot Credits for Resilience. Retrieved from
http://www.usgbc.org/credits/enhancedresilience
U.S. Green Building Council. (2016b). LEED Reference Guide for Neighborhood Development v4.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-reference-guide-
neighborhood-development-0
U.S. Green Building Council. (2018a). LEED v4 Homes Design and Construction. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED v4
Homes_10.5.18_current_0.pdf
U.S. Green Building Council. (2018b). RELi 2.0 - Rating Guidelines for Resilient Design &
Construction. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved from
https://www.usgbc.org/resources/reli-20-rating-guidelines-resilient-design-and-construction
U.S. Green Building Council. (2019). LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction - Beta.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://new.usgbc.org/leed-v41
Uda, M., & Kennedy, C. (2015). A framework for analysing neighbourhood resilience. Urban
Design and Planning, 168(3), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.14.00028
Uda, M., & Kennedy, C. (2018). Evaluating the Resilience of Sustainable Neighborhoods by
Exposing LEED Neighborhoods to Future Risks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 24(4), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000443.
UN Environment and International Energy Agency. (2017). Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and
resilient buildings and construction sector. Global Status Report 2017. Retrieved from
www.globalabc.org
136
United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
United Nations. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement.
Urban Green Council. (n.d.). Building Resiliency Task Force Proposal Tracker. Retrieved June 19,
2020, from https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/resiliencytracker
Urban Green Council. (2010). NYC Green Codes Task Force Report - Executive Summary. New
York City. Retrieved from http://urbangreencouncil.org/content/projects/green-codes-task-
force
Urban Green Council. (2013). Building Resiliency Task Force Report. New York City.
Urban Green Council. (2014). Baby, It’s Cold Inside. New York City.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-2510(08)70066-4
Urban Green Council. (2019a). Advancing Electrification. Retrieved June 19, 2020, from
https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/content/projects/advancing-electrification
Urban Green Council. (2019b). NYC Building Emissions Law Summary. Retrieved from
https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/sites/default/files/urban_green_council_building_emissi
ons_law_summary_v2.pdf
Vale, L. J., Shamsuddin, S., Gray, A., & Bertumen, K. (2014). What Affordable Housing Should
Afford: Housing for Resilient Cities. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research ,
16(2), 21–50.
van der Heijden, J. (2015). On the potential of voluntary environmental programmes for the built
environment: a critical analysis of LEED. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(4),
553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-014-9428-z
Venkataraman, V., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2018). Critical Success and Failure Factors for Managing
Green Building Projects. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24(4), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000327
Vierra, S. (2019). Green Building Standards and Certification Systems. Retrieved August 16,
2020, from https://www.wbdg.org/resources/green-building-standards-and-certification-
systems
Viguié, V., & Hallegatte, S. (2012). Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies. Nature
Climate Change, 2, 334–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1434
Walsh, C. L. et al. (2011). Assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation in cities. Urban
Design and Planning, 164(DP2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2011.164.2.75
Walsh, C. L. et al. (2013). Experiences of integrated assessment of climate impacts, adaptation
and mitigation modelling in London and Durban. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 361–
380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247813501121
Wang, J. (2019). British Columbia’s Forest Fires, 2018. Ottawa.
Waterfront Alliance. (2018). Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines. New York City. Retrieved from
waterfrontalliance.org/WEDG
Watkiss, P., Benzie, M., & Klein, R. J. T. (2015). The complementarity and comparability of climate
change adaptation and mitigation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6),
541–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.368
Weisbrod, C. (2016). Resilient Neighborhoods - East Village, Lower East Side, Two Bridges. New
York City. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc7724d.22
Wilbanks, T. J., Leiby, P., Perlack, R., Ensminger, T. J., & Wright, S. B. (2007). Toward an
integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-
007-9095-4
137
Wilbanks, T. J., & Sathaye, J. (2007). Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to
climate change: A synthesis. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5),
957–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9108-3
Wilson, A. (2015, November 13). LEED Pilot Credits on Resilient Design Adopted! . Retrieved June
19, 2020, from https://www.resilientdesign.org/leed-pilot-credits-on-resilient-design-
adopted/
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
World Health Organization. (2012). Climate change and human health - risks and responses.
Summary. - Climate change and infectious diseases. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/globalchange/summary/en/index5.html
Yan, M., He, Y., Shahidehpour, M., Ai, X., Li, Z., & Wen, J. (2018). Coordinated Regional-District
Operation of Integrated Energy Systems for Resilience Enhancement in Natural Disasters.
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(5), 4881–4892.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2018.2870358
Zhao, D., McCoy, A. P., & Smoke, J. (2015). Resilient Built Environment: New Framework for
Assessing the Residential Construction Market. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 21(4), 1–
11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000177

138
Appendices

Appendix A – IBAMA Primer

139
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

The Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework is a tool to assist BC Housing
project teams as well as other building industry stakeholders in BC, Canada, and beyond; to help increase their multi-unit
residential building’s resilience to climate hazards (adaptation) while optimizing GHG reduction (mitigation) and
sustainability goals. IBAMA was conceived for new construction projects but can be adapted for retrofits and renovations.

Why IBAMA?
There are many policies and systems that focus on climate mitigation/sustainability in buildings, and a growing number
of guidelines and frameworks that address climate adaptation/resilience. However, most don’t adequately integrate
mitigation/sustainability with adaptation/resilience approaches. This lack of integration can result in unintended
consequences such as increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, augmented risks, negative health outcomes,
maladaptation, and added costs. By using IBAMA, project teams can investigate interactions between adaptation and
mitigation strategies to maximize synergies, minimize conflicts, identify trade-offs, and achieve more holistic solutions.
What is IBAMA?
IBAMA is a roadmap and flexible decision-making tool rather than a checklist or set of prescriptive requirements. It is a
step-by-step process that enables teams to respond to the unique context, vulnerabilities and circumstances of their
project such as the location, potential climate hazards, occupant demographics, budgets, and management structures.
When are the various IBAMA tools used?
This document is a primer for introducing the IBAMA process at initial ownership discussions or project team meetings in
the pre-design stage. The IBAMA reference guide and IBAMA Excel tool are more comprehensive documents that map out
a detailed process for using the framework, team roles and responsibilities, milestones and deliverables. They should
serve as the main resources throughout the project’s development and can also be consulted for additional information
and references when using the IBAMA Primer.

How is IBAMA organized?

The IBAMA framework consists of twelve sequential parts grouped into five stages:
A. Information gathering on the project, climate scenarios, key hazards, and neighbourhood resilience.
B. Evaluation of project and neighbourhood assets and risks.
C. Development of adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals and strategies.
D. Evaluation of proposed adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies to determine viability .
E. Adjustment of non-viable strategies and re-evaluation.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 1
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

When using this primer, refer to the IBAMA reference guide for additional information and resources if needed.

1. Project Information & Vulnerabilities

What are the key program and project requirements?
• Project purpose & principles:

• Program:

• Budget:

• MEP, security, and other technical:

• Building performance:

• Operations & Maintenance:

• Occupant health & well-being:

What are your project’s vulnerabilities?

Vulnerability is the degree to which a system, or part of it, may react adversely during the occurrence of a hazardous event.
• Physical vulnerabilities (Site, Infrastructure, Adjacencies):

• Resident/Occupant Vulnerabilities:

• Operational/Management Vulnerabilities:

• Economic Vulnerabilities:

• Other Vulnerabilities:

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 2
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

2. Project Lifespan & Climate Projections

What is the anticipated lifespan of your project?

What is the anticipated lifespan of the following project systems?

It is important to consider the distinct lifespans of the main building systems in order to optimize the project’s design for the
duration of each system, as well as to consider how the systems work together as a whole.

6-18. Pace Layering in Buildings (Brand) ©Peter Morville, CC BY-NC 2.0

• Structure:

• Enclosure:

• HVAC:

• Plumbing:

• Electrical:

• Site infrastructure:

Which future climate scenarios and historical climate data do you anticipate using for the design of the project?
Future climate scenarios include Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6, and RCP 8.5. It is
important to consider both current climate and future projections when developing the project’s design.

If you are not familiar with climate projection scenarios, consult with your municipality, an adaptation consultant, or the
Pacific Impacts Climate Consortium. Climate projections for Metro Vancouver can be found here:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-quality/AirQualityPublications/ClimateProjectionsForMetroVancouver.pdf

Is there a climate analog location (see Glossary for definition) that can be referenced?

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 3
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

3. Climate Hazards
Based on the climate projections for the future climate scenario selected:

• What are the top three anticipated climate hazards?

In determining the top hazards, consider factors such as hazard frequency, severity, duration, recovery time, project
exposure, and hazard impacts.

1.

2.

3.

• Describe any compounding hazards.

Compounding Hazards are multiple natural or climate hazards occurring concurrently or at around the same time.

• Describe any cascading impacts related to the above hazards.

Cascading Impacts are the secondary impacts or hazards from an initial natural or climate hazard event.
Hazard 1
1.

2.

3.

Hazard 2
1.

2.

3.

Hazard 3
1.

2.

3.

Compounding Hazards
1.

2.

3.
• Based on current or historical weather data, are there any additional hazards that should be considered for the
project?

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 4
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

4. Neighbourhood Resilience
How resilient is the project’s neighbourhood to the hazards listed above?

Resilience should be evaluated with respect to each hazard on a scale of 1-5 where 1= lowest resilience & 5= highest
resilience. Consider time factors with respect to the lifespan of the project. See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 4 for further
guidance on how to evaluate neighbourhood resilience and which stakeholders should be involved in the evaluation.

Categories Hazard 1 Hazard 2 Hazard 3 Compounding Other Hazard

Hazards
Describe Hazard

Infrastructure
(stormwater, sanitation,
roads, power, water,
communications, etc.)

Built Environment
(public buildings, services,
community buildings,
hospitals, etc.)

Natural Environment
(air quality, water quality,
open space, green space,
land area at risk, etc.)

Transportation
(bus, subway, train, bicycle
network, walkability, points
of entry to neighbourhood)

Government,
Community & Health
Services
(emergency management,
community organizations,
social services, health
services, community health,
businesses & retail, etc. )

Population
(age, language, family type,
minorities, gender, POC,
disabilities, etc.)

Local Economy
(income, employment,
home ownership, etc.)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 5
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

5. Neighbourhood Assets
Identify any potential neighbourhood assets that could be beneficial to the project with respect to the hazards identified.

List assets in left column and check off which hazards they apply to.
See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 5 for case study examples of neighbourhood assets.

Neighbourhood Assets Hazard 1 Hazard 2 Hazard 3 Compounding Other

Hazards Hazard

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 6
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

6. Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks

Based on the neighbourhood resilience assessment, list key neighbourhood vulnerabilities. For each vulnerability, rate
the level of risk to the neighbourhood with respect to each of the hazards listed.

See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 6 for further references on neighbourhood vulnerabilities and risks.

Risk levels should be evaluated with respect to each hazard on a scale of 1-5 where 1= low risk & 5= very high risk.

Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities Risk Level Risk Level Risk Level Risk Level to Risk Level
to Hazard 1 to Hazard 2 to Hazard 3 Compounded to Other
Hazards Hazard

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 7
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

7. Project Risks
Identify the highest project risks based on the combined assessment of the project vulnerabilities in Section 1 and each
hazard listed. Include any neighbourhood risks that significantly impact the project.

See IBAMA Reference Guide Section 7 for further references on project vulnerabilities and risks.

Risk levels should be evaluated with respect to each hazard on a scale of 1-5 where 1= low risk & 5= very high risk.

Project Vulnerabilities Risk Level Risk Level Risk Level Risk Level to Risk Level
to Hazard 1 to Hazard 2 to Hazard 3 Compounded to Other
Hazards Hazard

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 8
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

8. Climate Adaptation & Resilience Goals

Based on the highest project risks identified in Section 7 and keeping in mind the highest neighbourhood risks identified
in Section 6, list the project’s adaptation goals. Goals can refer to the occupants, physical assets, or other factors.

Hazard Risk Goals

For goals that are occupant-related, determine the essential needs for occupants during and after the hazard. List
essential needs in left column and check off which hazards they apply to.

Essential Needs Hazard 1 Hazard 2 Hazard 3 Compounded Other

Hazards Hazard

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 9
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

9. Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

List the key climate mitigation goals for the project. Focus on specific & measurable goals rather than general
certifications. Mitigation goals can be categorized as either Operational GHG reductions, Renewable energy generation,
Embodied GHG reductions (GHG emissions related to the construction, materials, and demolition of a building), and
Sequestration (capturing GHG emissions).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

List the key sustainability goals for the project. Goals not captured under climate mitigation would likely fall under
categories such as Location & Site, Water, Materials, Human & Public Health, Indoor Environment or Community & Equity.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 10
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

10. Climate Adaptation & Resilience Strategies

Based on the goals in Section 8 and taking into consideration the project’s purpose and principles listed in Section 1,
develop a list of potential adaptation and resilience strategies. Consider strategies that pertain to design and
construction, management and operations, and neighbourhood assets/risks in Sections 5 & 6.

When proposing strategies, keep in mind climate projections over the project’s and building systems’ lifespans, as well as
limitations related to proposed solutions, such as time or reliance on external services. Verify that proposed strategies
for each hazard meet regulatory requirements, the project requirements in Section 1, and do not conflict with adaptation
and resilience goals for the other main hazards.

Hazard Climate Adaptation & Proposed Adaptation & Resilience Strategies

Resilience Goals

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 11
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

11. Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Based on the goals in Section 9 and taking into consideration the project’s purpose and principles listed in Section 1,
develop a list of potential climate mitigation and sustainability strategies. Consider strategies that pertain to design and
construction as well as management and operations. Strategies should take into account the changing climate
throughout the building’s lifespan.

When proposing strategies keep in mind climate projections over the project’s and building systems’ lifespans, as well as
time and other limitations. Verify that the proposed strategies meet regulatory requirements, the project requirements in
Section 1, and do not conflict with other mitigation and sustainability goals.

Mitigation or Proposed Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Sustainability Goals

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 12
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

12a. Evaluation of Strategies – Adaptation

Evaluate each of the proposed adaptation strategies for each hazard to determine how well they meet the following six
criteria. Criteria deemed not significant to the owner can be eliminated. Use multiple copies of the table if needed.

Evaluation scale: 1-5 where 1= Doesn’t sufficiently meet the criteria, 3= Somewhat meets the criteria, 5= Meets the criteria

Technical Requirements include simplicity of implementation, operations and maintenance, durability, and degree of
independence from other systems and services.
Project Requirements include the owner’s project requirements, project program, and occupant well-being.
Direct Costs include design costs, construction costs, and operations & maintenance costs.
Indirect Costs & Benefits are hazard-related costs not borne by or directed to the project owner or developer, but by or to
entities external to the project such as municipalities or health services.

Adaptation Strategy Adaptation Mitigation & Technical Project Direct Indirect

Goals Sustainability Requirements Requirements Costs Costs &
Goals Benefits

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 13
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

12b. Evaluation of Strategies – Mitigation & Sustainability

Evaluate each of the proposed mitigation and sustainability strategies to determine how well they meet the following six
criteria. Criteria deemed not significant to the owner can be eliminated. Use multiple copies of the table if needed.

Evaluation scale: 1-5 where 1= Doesn’t sufficiently meet the criteria, 3= Somewhat meets the criteria, 5= Meets the criteria

Technical Requirements include simplicity of implementation, operations and maintenance, durability, and degree of
independence from other systems and services.
Project Requirements include the owner’s project requirements, project program, and occupant well-being.
Direct Costs include design costs, construction costs, and operations & maintenance costs.
Indirect Costs & Benefits are hazard-related costs not borne by the project owner but by entities external to the project, or
additional co-benefits to the project or community.

Mitigation & Adaptation Mitigation & Technical Project Direct Indirect

Sustainability Strategy Goals Sustainability Requirements Requirements Costs Costs &
Goals Benefits

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 14
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

12c. Selection of Adaptation, Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Select strategies for further development that meet the following criteria:
• Minimum score of 3 in all categories AND
• Minimum score of 4 in adaptation goals category AND
• Minimum score of 4 in mitigation & sustainability goals category

Strategies that do not meet the above criteria should be reassessed, and/or project goals re-evaluated.

Selected Strategies Follow Up

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 15
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

Glossary of Terms

Cascading Impacts The secondary impacts or hazards following an initial natural or climate hazard
event. Examples include power outages due to wildfires, heavy rain causing
landslides, reduced road and transportation access after flooding, or supply chain
interruptions following an earthquake.

Climate Adaptation A gradual process of maintaining points of resilience to climate change that
ultimately results in a future state of being.

Climate Analog Climate-analog mapping involves matching the expected future climate at a location
with the current climate of another, potentially familiar, location - thereby providing
a more relatable, place-based assessment of climate change.

Climate Hazard Agent of disaster for human settlements or to the environment. Includes wildfires,
tropical cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, drought, flooding, rain, hail, snow,
lightning, fog, wind, temperature extremes, air pollution, and climatic change.

Climate Mitigation Reducing of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to decrease global warming.

Climate Resilience The capacity of a building or community to absorb external climate stresses; retain
function; reduce risk; and enable people, organizations, and systems to persist.

Co-benefit Benefit(s) of a mitigation and/or adaptation strategy that contributes to additional

project or community goals.

Compounding Hazards
(Synonyms: compounding
processes, compounding events)
The effects of multiple natural or climate hazard events occurring concurrently or at
around the same time. Examples include wildfires occurring during periods of
extreme heat and drought, with ensuing poor air quality. A compounding hazard
can also include the same hazard occurring multiple times within a short period,
such as multiple heavy rainfalls over consecutive days.

Conflict Adaptation action that has negative consequences for mitigation, or vice-versa.

Embodied GHG Emissions The total impact of all the greenhouse gases emitted by the materials and
(or Embodied Carbon) construction of a building. This includes the impacts of sourcing raw materials,
manufacturing, transportation, wastage, maintenance, repairs, and disposal or
recovery.

Equity A concept concerned with the fair and equitable provision, implementation, and
impact of services, programs, and policies for all community members.

Independence from external The degree to which a strategy is reliant on the functioning of an externally provided
systems/services system or service such as an electric utility, municipal transportation service, or
community centre.

Indirect Costs or Benefits Hazard-related costs or benefits that are not borne by or directed to the project
owner or developer, but entities external to the project such as municipalities or
health services.

Maladaptation Reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-term vulnerability, or increasing the
vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups over any time horizon.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 16
Integrated Building Adaptation & Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Primer

Representative Concentration Greenhouse concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by

Pathways (RCPs) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Four pathways were used
for climate modeling and research for the IPCC fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in
2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of which are considered
possible depending on the volume of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted in the years
to come. The original RCP scenarios are RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5.
Additional RCP scenarios have been developed since AR5.

Risk The possibility of injury, loss, damage or negative environmental impact created by a
hazard. Risk is a function of the probability and severity of a hazard event, exposure
to the hazard, and the vulnerability of the people or physical assets exposed.

Sustainability • Meeting present needs without compromising ability of future generations to

meet their needs.
• Increasing quality of life with respect to environmental, social and economic
considerations, both in present and future generations.

Synergy Interaction between adaptation and mitigation strategies when the combined effect
of the strategies is equally or more beneficial than the effects of the individual
strategies.

Trade-off Action that balances mitigation and adaptation when it is not possible to fully carry
out both objectives.

Vulnerability The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.

IBAMA was developed as part of BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) initiative. The project was led by Ilana
Judah, architect and MSc Student at The Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at The University of British Columbia,
under the supervision of Dr. Stephanie Chang. Funding and project management support were provided by the Pacific Institute for Climate
Solutions (PICS).

IBAMA Version 1.0 will be piloted on a BC Housing case study/ies in order to produce a baseline assessment, optimize the tools and
incorporate additional references.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Primer – Version 1.0 17
Appendix B – IBAMA Reference Guide

157
Version 1.0

Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation

Assessment (IBAMA) Framework
Applicable to the Design of Multi-Unit Residential Buildings
REFERENCE GUIDE November 2020

New Jubilee House (Image courtesy of GBL Architects Inc., by permission. Photographer: Derek Lepper)
IBAMA was developed as part of BC Housing’s Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) initiative.

The project was led by Ilana Judah, architect and MSc Student at The Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at The
University of British Columbia, under the supervision of Dr. Stephanie Chang.

Funding and project management support were provided by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS).

IBAMA Version 1.0 will be piloted on a BC Housing case study/ies in order to produce a baseline assessment, optimize the tools and
incorporate additional references.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0
Table of Contents

Introduction to IBAMA .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Reference Guide Instructions ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Document Structure ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
IBAMA Excel Tool .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Integrated Project Team ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Summary of IBAMA Parameters ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Scoring and Performance Metrics .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Integrated Process Meetings & Site ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Key Deliverables per Project Phase........................................................................................................................................ 7
Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Section 1 - Project Information .................................................................................................................................. 11
Section 2 - Climate Information ................................................................................................................................. 16
Section 3 – Climate Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Section 4 - Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazards....................................................................................................... 28
Sections 5 & 6 - Neighbourhood Assets and Risks ....................................................................................................... 40
5. Neighbourhood Assets ..................................................................................................................................................... 40
6. Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks ............................................................................................................................ 41
Section 7 - Project Risks ............................................................................................................................................. 48
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals ......................................................................................................................... 54
Section 9 - Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals ................................................................................................. 61
Section 10 - Adaptation Strategies ............................................................................................................................. 67
Section 11- Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies ......................................................................................... 77
Section 12 - Evaluation of Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team ....................................................................................................... 104
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets ........................................................................................................................ 112

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0
Introduction to IBAMA

Introduction to IBAMA
The Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) framework is a tool to assist BC Housing project
teams as well as other building industry stakeholders in BC, Canada, and beyond; to help increase their project’s
resilience to climate hazards (adaptation) while optimizing GHG reduction (mitigation) and sustainability goals.
Why IBAMA?
There are many policies and systems that focus on climate mitigation/sustainability in buildings, and a growing number
of guidelines and frameworks that address climate adaptation/resilience. However, most don’t adequately integrate
mitigation/sustainability with adaptation/resilience approaches. This lack of integration can result in unintended
consequences such as increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, augmented risks, negative health outcomes,
maladaptation, and added costs. By using IBAMA, project teams can investigate interactions between adaptation and
mitigation strategies to maximize synergies, minimize conflicts, identify trade-offs, and achieve more holistic solutions.
What is IBAMA?
IBAMA is a roadmap and flexible decision-making tool rather than a checklist or set of prescriptive requirements. This will
enable project teams to respond to the unique context, vulnerabilities and circumstances of their project such as the
location and neighbourhood, potential climate hazards, occupant demographics, budgets, and management structures.
How is IBAMA implemented?
This document serves as a reference guide for implementing IBAMA. It is accompanied by an IBAMA Excel tool where
information and decisions can be documented, and evaluations carried out. A separate abbreviated primer that
introduces the framework process to project teams is also available and can be used at a project’s inception to generate
initial thoughts and establish a general direction on adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals and strategies.
When is IBAMA used?
It is critical to use the IBAMA framework at the early stages of a project: financing, pre-design and schematic design.
However, there are milestones and deliverables at later stages of the design, construction and operations process to
ensure that goals are being met and strategies carried out. Most importantly, final goals and strategies implemented
should be clearly documented for reference by the management and operations team throughout the project’s lifespan.
Where should IBAMA be employed?
While IBAMA is conceived to be used on new construction projects, the process can be adapted for retrofits and
renovations. In this case, additional parameters pertaining to existing conditions and logistics planning should be added.

Figure 1. Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) Process

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 1
Reference Guide Instructions

Reference Guide Instructions

The IBAMA Reference Guide is intended to be used (with the associated Excel tool) as a living document that evolves
through the project planning, design, construction and operations phases. Each section of the guide provides step-by-
step instructions about the information required for the evaluation, the parameters to assess; and the stakeholders
needed to complete an evaluation, develop goals, or determine appropriate strategies. The guide also includes
suggestions for when to carry out integrated project meetings and/or workshops, and what deliverables should be
provided at each stage of the process.

Document Structure
Following the introduction and instructions, the Reference Guide is organized into twelve sequential sections that are
grouped according to the first four phases of the IBAMA process (Figure 1). A fifth phase, Adjust and Re-evaluate, allows
for an iterative process whereby strategies that don’t sufficiently meet adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals
would be eliminated, revised, or re-evaluated. While not in the current scope of IBAMA, understanding impacts of
proposed strategies on the neighbourhood is also encouraged.
A. Information Gathering
B. Evaluation of Assets and Risks
C. Goal Setting and Strategy Development
D. Strategy Evaluation
Each framework section is organized as follows:
Section Description – Overview of the purpose, intent and objectives of the chapter.
Parameters – Information inputs, assessments or evaluations required. Instructions are provided on how to complete
fields, as well as suggestions for which party/ies are responsible for their completion. This information should be input in
the IBAMA Excel tool and updated as the project evolves.
Reference Standards – Official documents and standards that were used either to help develop the parameters and/or
can serve as references when completing the parameter fields.

Additional Resources – Additional reference materials that may be helpful for completing inputs or making decisions
regarding goals or strategies. Some of these resources are valuable technical resources for developing specific strategies.

Case Study Example – Where applicable, examples of how parameters can be completed/developed using a BC Housing
project or other BC case study. Note: The examples and associated inputs are for illustrative purposes only, and do not
represent actual project designs, evaluations or decisions by the project team.
Recommended Documentation and Deliverables – Suggested deliverables at each project milestone, including parties
responsible for documentation.

IBAMA Excel Tool

The IBAMA Excel tool is to be used as a master document to track project, climate, and neighbourhood information;
document neighbourhood and project assets and risks; establish adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals;
develop potential strategies; and evaluate solutions. The tool should be updated regularly as the project evolves.

The tool is divided into tabs that follow the framework’s sections. Section 12 scores the proposed strategies according to
a series of weighted evaluation criteria, with greater weight placed on meeting adaptation, mitigation and sustainability
goals. Once the strategies have been evaluated, the tool will generate a series of graphs to help teams compare options.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 2
Reference Guide Instructions

Integrated Project Team

An integrated design, construction, and operations process is essential for effective implementation of climate
mitigation and sustainability goals. With adaptation and resilience goals, ensuring team integration is even more critical.

Whereas project teams addressing mitigation and sustainability goals are generally bounded by the limits of the project
site and program, incorporating adaptation and resilience requires broader expertise related to climate science,
municipal and infrastructure systems, neighbourhood amenities, as well as health and social services.

Given that some of the expertise required is beyond the scope of traditional design and construction teams, the project
owner and/or developer should review the IBAMA parameters to determine how to obtain necessary information and
guidance. This may mean allocating additional fees for an expanded project team, greater collaboration with the
municipality, or leveraging knowledge from other nearby projects. If the owner is not able to acquire all the necessary
information related to the adaptation and resilience parameters, it is recommended that the project team take a
precautionary approach when determining adaptation and resilience strategies.

Ideally, an integrated IBAMA project team would include many of the following members at various phases of the project,
depending upon the project’s scope. Depending upon the project others may also be included, such as health or equity
consultants. Those in bold represent participants that are not typical to a conventional design and construction process:
Architect, Adaptation Consultant, Climate Scientist, Commissioning Agent, Contractor/Construction Manager,
Cost Estimator, Emergency Management Representative, Facilities Manager, Health Authority
Representative, Landscape Architect, MEP Engineer, Municipal Resiliency Officer, Neighbourhood
Representative, Owner/Developer, Peer Reviewer, Planner/ Urban Designer, Resident Representative, Site/Civil
Engineer, Social Services Representative, Structural Engineer, Sub-Contractors (as required), Sustainability
Consultant, Utilities’ Representatives.

List of project team members with abbreviations

Team Member Abbr. Team Member Abbr.
Architect AR Owner/Developer OD
AC Peer Reviewer (On large projects, consultant PR
Adaptation Consultant
outside project team hired to review the design)
Climate Scientist CS Planner/Urban Designer PL

Commissioning Agent CX Resident Representative RR

Contractor/Construction Manager CM Site/Civil Engineer SC

Cost Estimator CE Social Services Representative SS

Emergency Management Representative EM Structural Engineer ST

Facilities Manager FM Sub-contractors SB

Health Authority Representative HA Sustainability Consultant SU

Landscape Architect LA Utilities Representative - Electricity UT-E

MEP Engineer ME Utilities Representative - Gas UT-G

Municipal Resiliency Officer MU Utilities Representative - IT UT-I

Neighbourhood Representative NR Utilities Representative - Other UT-O

(Community Board member or Neighbourhood
Planning Committee member)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 3
Reference Guide Instructions
Summary of IBAMA Parameters
The table below summarizes IBAMA categories and sub-categories. Individual parameters are listed in each section of the
IBAMA Reference Guide and in the Excel tool.
Summary of Parameter Categories
Parameter Category
1 Project Information
2 Climate Information
3 Hazards
4 Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazards
5 Neighbourhood Assets
6 Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks
7 Project Vulnerabilities & Risks
8 Climate Adaptation Goals
9 Climate Mitigation & Sustainability
Goals
10 Adaptation Strategies
11 Climate Mitigation & Sustainability
Strategies
12 Evaluation of Strategies
© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.
Sub-Category
General Information
Project Program & Requirements
Location, Site & Building Features
Anticipated Project Demographics
Climate Change Scenarios
Project & Systems Lifespans
Building Systems Linkages to Climate Change Scenarios
Hazard Scoring
Description of Top Climate Hazards & Compounding Hazards
Infrastructure
Built Environment
Natural Environment
Transportation
Community Governance, Services & Health
Neighbourhood Demographics
Economy
Neighbourhood Assets for Top Hazards
Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks for Top Hazards
Project Vulnerabilities & Risks for Top Hazards
Adaptation Goals for Top Hazards
Climate Mitigation Goals
Sustainability Goals
Adaptation Strategies for Top Hazards
Follow-up on Selected Adaptation Strategies
Climate Mitigation Strategies & Follow-up on Selected Strategies
Sustainability Strategies & Follow-up on Selected Strategies
Adaptation, Mitigation & Sustainability Strategy Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies
Scoring of Adaptation Strategies
Summary of Adaptation Strategies for Development
Evaluation of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies
Scoring of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies
Summary of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies for Development
IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 4
Reference Guide Instructions

Scoring and Performance Metrics

Project teams score potential adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies according to a series of evaluation
criteria that can be weighted according to the owner’s priorities. A minimum weight is given to both meeting adaptation
goals and meeting mitigation & sustainability goals. Twenty-one evaluation criteria are grouped into six categories:

▪ Climate Adaptation Goals

▪ Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals
▪ Technical Requirements
▪ Project Requirements
▪ Direct Costs
▪ Indirect Costs & Benefits
If desired, additional criteria can be added by the project team. Once strategies have been evaluated, total scores, scores
by category, and comparative charts are generated in the Excel tool (Figures 2 & 3).

Figure 2. Bar chart comparing adaptation strategies for a compounding hazards scenario.

Figure 3. Radar chart comparing adaptation strategies for a compounding hazards scenario.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 5
Reference Guide Instructions
Integrated Process Meetings & Site
The table below summarizes the minimum recommended integrated team meetings and actions at each phase, with
suggested participants. These can be adjusted according to the project’s level of complexity, budget, and schedule.
Project Phase
Feasibility & Financing
Pre-Design
Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
Project Construction
As-built/ Occupancy
Post-Occupancy
© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.
Minimum Meetings & Site Visits Suggested
Participants
▪ Owners meeting to determine initial budget & consultant OD, CE
scope/fees for additional adaptation, mitigation &
sustainability measures.
▪ Meeting to develop project purpose and principles. OD, RR
▪ Meetings to develop project program. OD, RR, FM, (AR)
▪ Meetings to develop Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR). OD, RR, FM
▪ Meeting with Neighbourhood and Municipal representatives to OD, MU, NR, PL, HA,
review/complete Section 4. EM, AC, (AR)
▪ Meeting(s) with Utility representatives to review/complete OD, MU, NR, UTs, SC,
neighbourhood infrastructure evaluation in Section 4. AC, AR, ME, LA, AC
▪ Integrated Team workshop to complete Sections 1-9 of the OD, RR, FM, AR, SC,
IBAMA framework tool and discuss initial adaptive mitigation ST, ME, LA, SU, AC,
approach. CM, CE, CS
▪ Integrated Team workshop to review updated Sections 1-9 of OD, RR, FM, AR, SC,
the IBAMA framework tool, complete Sections 10-12 (proposed ST, ME, LA, SU, AC,
adaptation, mitigation, and sustainability strategies), and CM, CE, CS, PL
select strategies for further evaluation or development.
▪ Meeting w/ municipal and neighbourhood representatives to OD, AR, MU, NR, EM,
discuss feasibility and next steps for any proposed AD
neighbourhood-related strategies.
▪ Minimum of two team meetings to review development of OD, RR, FM, AR, SC,
adaptation, mitigation, & sustainability strategies, costs, ST, ME, LA, SU, AC,
potential adjustments, and peer review comments. CM, CE, (SBs)
▪ Follow up meeting(s) related to neighbourhood strategies. OD, AR, NR, EM, AD
▪ Onboarding meeting for new project team members. New team members
▪ Minimum bi-monthly team meeting to review development of OD, FM, AR, SC, ST,
adaptation, mitigation, & sustainability strategies, costs and ME, LA, SU, AC, CM,
potential adjustments. CE, CX, (SBs).
▪ Onboarding meeting for new project team members. New team members
▪ Onboarding meeting for new construction team members. New team members
▪ Dedicated IBAMA time slot at regular construction meetings. CM, SBs, OD, AR, SC,
ST, ME, LA, CX,
others if needed.
▪ Integrated team project walkthrough to review as-built
adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies. OD, FM, RR, CX, AR,
▪ Integrated team meeting with management and resident SC, ST, ME, LA, SU,
representatives to review as-built strategies and associated AC, CM
operating requirements.
▪ Integrated team meeting to review one-year post-occupancy OD, FM, RR, CX, AR,
adaptive mitigation “Commissioning” report. SC, ST, ME, LA, SU,
AC, CM
IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 6
Reference Guide Instructions

Key Deliverables per Project Phase

The table below summarizes the main recommended deliverables at each phase. These can be adjusted according to the
project’s level of complexity, budget, and schedule. However, a first iteration of Sections 1-9 should be completed by the
Pre-Design phase. Additional deliverables and details are listed subsequent sections of the IBAMA Reference Guide.

Project Phase Deliverable

Feasibility & Financing
Pre-Design
Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
Project Construction
As-built/ Occupancy
Post-Occupancy
▪ Preliminary high-level climate hazard assessment.
▪ Budget with allocation for additional consultant fees.
▪ Initial budget that accounts for potential climate mitigation & adaptation measures,
including potential value creation assessment.
▪ List of integrated team members and auxiliary contacts.
▪ Completed sections 1-9 of the IBAMA framework tool.
▪ Summary report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation goals, and
mitigation/sustainability goals.
▪ Updated sections 1-9 of the IBAMA framework tool.
▪ Completed sections 10-13 of the IBAMA framework tool.
▪ Strategy evaluation report describing adaptation, mitigation and sustainability
strategy alternatives with associated scores, and selected strategies.
▪ Preliminary cost estimate of selected strategies.
▪ Updated report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation, mitigation and
sustainability goals.
▪ Updated IBAMA framework tool with modifications noted.
▪ Development of technical strategies in drawings and specifications.
▪ Peer-review report of strategies to confirm alignment with initial adaptation and
mitigation/sustainability goals, as well as recommended adjustments.
▪ Updated report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation, mitigation and
sustainability goals; selected strategies and scores, explaining synergies and conflicts.
▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies.
▪ Further development of technical strategies in drawings and specifications.
▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies.
▪ Updated report of key climate hazards, risks & assets, adaptation, mitigation and
sustainability goals; selected strategies and scores, explaining synergies and conflicts.
▪ Contact list of design & construction leads responsible for IBAMA strategies.
▪ Ongoing construction meeting agenda item for IBAMA strategies in meeting minutes.
▪ Monthly IBAMA-related construction report by general contractor.
▪ Schedule of IBAMA-related site visits with IBAMA design & construction leads.
▪ IBAMA site visit reports by IBAMA design & construction leads.
▪ Summary of adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals, as well as strategies.
▪ Manual and/or training video for building managers and operators focusing on
proposed strategies and related hazards.
▪ Contact list of project team, municipality, utility & other representatives.
▪ Resident education video for hazard preparedness, mitigation and sustainability best
practices.
▪ Schedule of hazard preparedness drills coordinated with municipality.
▪ Schedule for testing and inspections of adaptation, mitigation and sustainability-
related systems.
▪ Adaptive mitigation commissioning report following first year of occupancy.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 7
Reference Guide Instructions

Glossary of Terms

Avoided Costs or Losses Hazard-related economic costs losses that were avoided due to specific adaptation
or resilience measures.

Cascading Impacts The secondary impacts or hazards following an initial natural or climate hazard
event. Examples include power outages due to wildfires, heavy rain causing
landslides, reduced road and transportation access after flooding, or supply chain
interruptions following an earthquake.

Climate Adaptation A gradual process of maintaining points of resilience to climate change that
ultimately results in a future state of being.

Climate Analog Climate-analog mapping involves matching the expected future climate at a location
with the current climate of another, potentially familiar, location - thereby providing
a more relatable, place-based assessment of climate change.

Climate Hazard Agent of disaster for human settlements or to the environment. Includes wildfires,
tropical cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, drought, flooding, rain, hail, snow,
lightning, fog, wind, temperature extremes, air pollution, and climatic change.

Climate Mitigation Reducing of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to decrease global warming.

Climate Resilience The capacity of a building or community to absorb external climate stresses; retain
function; reduce risk; and enable people, organizations, and systems to persist.

Co-benefit Benefit(s) of a mitigation and/or adaptation strategy that contributes to additional

project or community goals.

Compounding Hazards
(Synonyms: compounding
processes, compounding events)
The effects of multiple natural or climate hazard events occurring concurrently or at
around the same time. Examples include wildfires occurring during periods of
extreme heat and drought, with ensuing poor air quality. A compounding hazard
can also include the same hazard occurring multiple times within a short period,
such as multiple heavy rainfalls over consecutive days.

Conflict Adaptation action that has negative consequences for mitigation, or vice-versa.

Effectiveness The degree to which a strategy is effective at reducing risk or GHG emissions. For
example, an extensive green roof may have low effectiveness at reducing
stormwater runoff while an intensive green roof may have moderate effectiveness.

Embodied GHG Emissions The total impact of all the greenhouse gases emitted by the materials and
(or Embodied Carbon) construction of a building. This includes the impacts of sourcing raw materials,
manufacturing, transportation, wastage, maintenance, repairs, and disposal or
recovery.

Equity A concept concerned with the fair and equitable provision, implementation, and
impact of services, programs, and policies for all community members.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 8
Reference Guide Instructions

Hazard (See Climate Hazard)
The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or
physical impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as
damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision,
ecosystems, and environmental resources. In this document, the term hazard
typically refers to climate-related physical events, or trends, or their physical
impacts. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. Annex II Glossary, in Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability).

Hazard Mitigation Measures that aim to lessen physical damage to natural and built environments
during and after hazard events, and also reduce impacts on the social and economic
networks of a community.

Independence from external The degree to which a strategy is reliant on the functioning of an externally provided
systems/services system or service such as an electric utility, municipal transportation service, or
community centre.

Indirect Costs or Benefits Hazard-related costs or benefits that are not borne by or directed to the project
owner or developer, but by or to entities external to the project such as
municipalities or health services.

Maladaptation Reducing short-term risk at the expense of long-term vulnerability, or increasing the
vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups over any time horizon.

Multi-hazard An approach that considers more than one hazard in a given place and the
(or Multi-hazard Approach) interrelations between these hazards, including their simultaneous or cumulative
occurrence and their potential interactions.

Net-Zero Building A highly energy efficient building that produces onsite, or procures, carbon-free
(or Zero Carbon) renewable energy or high-quality carbon offsets to offset the annual carbon
emissions associated with building operations, and sometimes materials.

Opportunity Costs The economic benefits that are missed when selecting one strategy over another.

Reliability/Functionality The degree to which a strategy can reliably function in order to achieve the desired
goal. For example, having residents opening windows for natural ventilation to
reduce artificial cooling is not a highly reliable strategy, whereas automated shutoff
of cooling systems below a specific temperature may be a more reliable strategy.

Representative Concentration Greenhouse concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by

Pathways (RCPs) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Four pathways were used
for climate modeling and research for the IPCC fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in
2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of which are considered
possible depending on the volume of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted in the years
to come. The original RCP scenarios are RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5.
Additional RCP scenarios have been developed since AR5.

Resilience Dividend
The difference in the outcomes between a scenario with a resilience approach and
one with a non-resilient business-as-usual approach. It quantifies both the direct
returns to the immediate resilience goal, as well as the societal and financial co-
benefits. (Rodin, J., 2017, Valuing the Resilience Dividend). These can include value-added to
the project and regenerative potential.

Risk The possibility of injury, loss, damage or negative environmental impact created by a
hazard. Risk is a function of the probability and severity of a hazard event, exposure
to the hazard, and the vulnerability of the people or physical assets exposed.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 9
Reference Guide Instructions

Sustainability • Meeting present needs without compromising ability of future generations to

meet their needs.
• Increasing quality of life with respect to environmental, social and economic
considerations, both in present and future generations.

Synergy Interaction between adaptation and mitigation strategies when the combined effect
of the strategies is equally or more beneficial than the effects of the individual
strategies.

Trade-off Action that balances mitigation and adaptation when it is not possible to fully carry
out both objectives.

Vulnerability The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 10
Section 1 – Project Information

Section 1 - Project Information

Description
This section outlines what general project information is required for the IBAMA analysis. This information forms the
basis for making informed decisions throughout the project regarding potential mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Parameters
1a. General Information
Parameter Notes Completed
by
List the name, title or information for each of the parameters below.
i. Name
ii. Address
iii. Owner
Some data may not be available
iv. Operator
at the neighborhood scale, only at
v. Funder
the municipal level. Wherever OD
vi. Neighbourhood - align with municipal/census information
possible, reference municipal
vii. Municipality
level information.
viii. Region
ix. Indigenous Territory & Stakeholders
x. Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK)

List the names of all relevant utility providers, contact person if

available, and any specific details pertaining to utility service.
xi. Utility Providers
• Electricity
• Water
• Sewer OD
• Phone
• Internet/Cable
• Gas
• Other (specify)

Describe the project typology in sufficient detail (e.g. low income

assisted living, transitional housing for single mothers, market rate
condos, etc.) OD
xii. Typology

List anticipated project budget & schedule. Includes all hard

(construction) and soft (permits, design fees, land) costs related to Include all anticipated project
design and construction. costs related to design &
OD, CE
xiii. Project budget – total construction. Include all schedule
xiv. Project schedule & milestones milestones.

Describe the overall project’s purpose and guiding principles.

xv. Project’s purpose and guiding principles Similar to a mission statement. OD, RR

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 11
Section 1 – Project Information

1b. Project Program and Requirements

Parameter Notes Completed
by
Reference or append existing documents or provide a breakdown of
the program and project requirements per the list below.
i. Project program
• List of unit types and counts
• List of amenity areas
• List of service areas OD, RR, AR
• Retail areas if applicable
• Parking requirements
• List of site/outdoor areas See Additional Resources – Project
• Area breakdown of all spaces (m2 or ft2) Program and Requirements for
• Space efficiency requirements guidance on project programs
• Other program requirements and Owner’s project
requirements.
ii. Owner’s project requirements (OPR)
• Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security, and
other technical requirements
• Building performance requirements OD, RR, FM
• Operations & Maintenance criteria
• Occupant comfort requirements
• Other requirements

List estimated costs and budgets.

iii. Soft project costs (consultant fees, permits, land costs, etc.)
iv. Construction budget (project budget minus soft costs)
v. Annual operations budget (staff, energy costs, etc.) OD, CE,
vi. Estimated costs associated with IBAMA process CM, FM
vii. Anticipated value to be added from adaptation, mitigation
& sustainability measures.

List all applicable codes and regulations, including reference year.

viii. Applicable building codes & regulations
• Building code
• Energy code
• Fire code Note any codes and regulations
• Plumbing Code that may potentially impact AR, SC, ST,
• Building by-laws mitigation and/or adaptation ME, LA, PL
• Zoning regulations strategies
• Official Community Plan (OCP)
• Neighbourhood regulations
• Other regulations

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 12
Section 1 – Project Information

1c. Location, Site and Building Features

Parameter Notes Completed
by
Describe all relevant site and infrastructure features. Append a site
analysis drawing that includes information listed.
i. Site Features
• Soil & topographical conditions
• Water bodies and watershed
• Landscape features Cross reference information
• Adjacencies (Neighbouring buildings, features) compiled in this section to findings
• On-site food cultivation opportunities from Section 4 - Neighbourhood AR, SC, LA
• Contamination and remediation needs Resilience.
• Air and noise quality

ii. Infrastructure
• Location of utilities serving the site
• Roads, sidewalks and access
• Transportation (bus, rail, bicycle, etc.)

Describe desired building features.

iii. Building Design Features
• Materials
• Structural systems If unknown at early project stages, OR, RR, AR,
• Mechanical systems update as the project evolves. ST, ME, LA
• Landscape features
• Other (social, age-related, services, amenities)

1d. Anticipated Project Demographics

Parameter Notes Completed
by
Describe the primary resident type in each category. If multiple
types, list ‘variable’ or note all types.
i. Primary age group (adults, families, seniors, etc.)
ii. Dominant family type (singles, couples, families, variable) RR, FM
iii. Income (low, middle, high income) Estimate initial information as best
iv. Other demographics (e.g. LGBTQ+, domestic violence, etc.) as possible, and update as the
project evolves. See Additional
List estimated percentages of project residents. Resources – Project Demographics
v. Indigenous and ethno-racial
vi. Official language speakers RR, FM
vii. Disability (indicate percentages and types of disabilities)

Identify anticipated general level of health of residents. Consult local health authority and
viii. Health (poor, moderate, good, excellent) see Additional Resources – Project RR, FM, HA
Demographics
Rank as High, Medium or Low.
ix. Ratio of management and operations staff to residents Capacity: knowledge and ability to
manage more complex systems. OD, FM
x. Capacity level of management and operations staff

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 13
Section 1 – Project Information

Reference Standards
British Columbia, BC Building Code
http://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/content/public/bcbc2018/?xsl=/templates/browse.xsl

British Columbia, BC Energy Step Code - https://energystepcode.ca/

British Columbia, BC Fire Code - http://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/content/public/bcfc2018/?xsl=/templates/browse.xsl

British Columbia, BC Plumbing Code

http://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/content/public/bcpc2018/?xsl=/templates/browse.xsl

BC Housing, Design Guidelines & Construction Standards

https://www.bchousing.org/publications/BCH-Design-Guidelines-Construction-Standards.pdf

City of Vancouver, Vancouver Building By-Law 2019

http://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/content/public/vbbl2019/?xsl=/templates/browse.xsl

Additional Resources
General Information
US Green Building Council, LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction, IP Prerequisite: Integrative Project Planning and
Design, - https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41#bdc

Project Program and Requirements

ASHRAE, ASHRAE Headquarters Draft Owner’s Project Requirements*
https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/About/New%20HQ/ASHRAE-OPR-attachment-to-Design-Services-RFP-
signed.pdf

Building Green, Owner’s Project Requirements: What It Is, What It Could Be*
https://www.buildinggreen.com/primer/owner-s-project-requirements-what-it-what-it-could-be

U.S. General Services Administration, Define Owner’s Project Requirements with the Customer Agency*
https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-construction/commissioning/commissioning-program/building-
commissioning-process/planning-stage/define-owners-project-requirements-with-the-customer-agency

Whole Building Design Guide, Architectural Programming*

https://www.wbdg.org/design-disciplines/architectural-programming

Location, Site and Building Features

US Green Building Council, LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction, SS Credit: Site Assessment*
https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41#bdc

Project Demographics
BC Centre for Disease Control, BC Community Health Data
http://communityhealth.phsa.ca/HealthProfiles#panel-nha2019
Government of Ontario, Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) - http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/heia/
Statistics Canada, Census Profile, 2016 Census
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 14
Section 1 – Project Information

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ Allocation for additional consultants/consultant fees, and quantify potential OD
Financing cost-benefits if possible
▪ General % budget allocation for adaptation, mitigation, & sustainability OD, CE
measures beyond standard requirements
▪ List of municipal, neighbourhood, and utility representative contacts OD
▪ Develop Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) OD, RR, FM
Pre-Design ▪ List of integrated team members and auxiliary contacts OD
▪ Develop project program OD, RR, AR
▪ Completed Section 1 of IBAMA framework See 1a-1d
Schematic Design ▪ Updated Section 1 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 1a-1d
▪ Update to project budget based on preliminary cost estimate of selected CE
strategies
▪ Code and regulatory review report of selected strategies AR, SC, ST,
ME, LA, PL
Design ▪ Updated Section 1 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 1a-1d
Development ▪ Update to project budget based on updated cost estimate of revised CE
strategies
▪ Updates to code and regulatory review of revised strategies AR, SC, ST,
ME, LA, PL
Construction ▪ Updated Section 1 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 1a-1d
Documents ▪ Update to project budget based on updated cost estimates CE
▪ Updates to code and regulatory review of revised strategies AR, SC, ST,
ME, LA, PL
Project ▪ Contact list of design & construction leads responsible for IBAMA strategies CM
Construction ▪ Monthly updates to Section 1 of IBAMA framework based on construction CM, AR, SC,
changes ST, ME, LA
As-built/ ▪ Updated project program and OPR based on as-built conditions OD, AR, SC,
Occupancy ST, ME, LA
▪ Updated operations budget FM, RR
▪ Updated demographic information with additional details for building RR, FM
management
▪ Contact list of project team, municipal, health authority and utility OD, FM
representatives
Post-Occupancy ▪ One-year post-occupancy adaptive mitigation “Commissioning” report AR, SC, ST,
ME, LA, SU, AC
▪ Ongoing updates of demographic information FM, RR
▪ Regular updates of contact list FM
▪ Regular updates of operations budget FM, RR

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 15
Section 2 – Climate Information

Section 2 - Climate Information

Description
This section pertains to climate data that will inform climate hazards potentially impacting the project. Selecting a future
climate scenario(s) based on climate change projections will help project teams design for future conditions. The goals in
Section 2 are to target an official climate change scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), identify sources that translate the IPCC scenarios into locally applicable data, and link the anticipated lifespans of
specific building systems to the appropriate reference year of the IPCC climate scenarios. Engaging a climate adaptation
consultant or climate scientist to assist the design team is important. Considering current and past weather data along
with multiple climate scenarios is also important, to ensure that systems are designed for peak hazard conditions.

The reasoning for linking system lifespans to IPCC scenario reference years is to reduce overdesign, embodied carbon
and costs for systems that will be replaced before the end of a building’s lifespan. When developing solutions, design
teams still must be careful to consider the lifespan of related systems. For example, a chiller may have a 20-year lifespan
while its support structure has a 100-year lifespan and should be engineered to accommodate a future larger chiller.

Parameters
2a. Climate Change Scenarios
Parameter Notes Completed by
Identify the IPCC Climate Scenarios and historical climate data to be
used for the project. Reference official scenarios and climate data Sufficiently granular data may
adopted by the municipality. If not available, reference official be difficult to locate if the
provincial or territorial information. region or municipality has not
AC, CS
created it. If not, consider
i. IPCC climate scenarios (RCP 8.5, 6.0, 4.5, or 2.6) hiring a climate scientist to
ii. Other climate data (historical and/or current) help determine scenarios.
iii. Climate analog location (see Glossary of Terms)

2b. Project and Systems Lifespans

Parameter Notes Completed by
Indicate anticipated lifespan (in five-year increments) prior to
significant repair or replacement of the component or system.
i. Building, Structure and Foundations
Building &
ii. Enclosure – Exterior Walls
Structure:
iii. Enclosure – Roof Reference product literature,
O, ST, SC
iv. Enclosure – Windows testing standards,
v. Systems – HVAC specifications, depreciation
Enclosure: AR
vi. Systems – Electrical reports of similar building
vii. Systems – Lighting types, and manufacturer
Systems: ME,
viii. Systems – IT & Communications warrantees. See Additional
Elevator
ix. Systems – Plumbing Distribution Resources – Building System
Consultant
x. Systems – Plumbing Fixtures Lifespans
xi. Systems – Fire Protection
Site: SC, LA
xii. Systems – Vertical Transportation
xiii. Site – Stormwater
xiv. Site – Landscape and Paving
xv. Other

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 16
Section 2 – Climate Information

The Architect, Engineers, Landscape Architect and Adaptation Consultant should to complete the table below in the IBAMA
Excel tool. Use multiple copies of the table as needed. The top climate hazards identified in Section 3 should be used for the
potential system lifespan interactions assessment in 2c. Hypothetical example inputs are indicated in grey.
1) Link the anticipated system lifespan in 2b to the appropriate reference year for the selected IPCC Scenario in 2a.
2) Rank feasibility of retrofitting the system at end of its lifespan using a later climate scenario (Low, Medium, High). In
other words, if the climate changes, how easily can the system be retrofitted to adapt to the new climate?
3) Using the hazards identified in Section 3, list potential system interactions and strategies to accommodate future
climate retrofits. For example, an HVAC system with a 15-year lifespan would only need to be designed to a 2035
climate. However, sufficient space for equipment and distribution would be required to ensure future cooling
requirements for 2050 and 2080.
4) Rank potential cost impacts of designing to the selected climate scenario, as well as preparing the current
construction to be retrofit for later climate scenarios (Low, Medium, High).

2c. Building Systems Linkages to Climate Change Scenarios (see Appendix B for additional worksheets)
Building Component/ System Related Retrofit Potential system lifespan Potential cost
System Lifespan climate feasibility interactions impacts of
scenario for later (In reference to each top designing to
and year climate hazard in Section 3) future climate
Building Structure and 100 yrs. RCP 8.5 N/A Flood level/waterproofing Medium
Foundations (2100) for 2100
Enclosure – Exterior Walls 60 yrs. RCP 8.5 Medium Design structural Low
(2080) connections for exterior
wall w/ 2100 projections.
Enclosure – Roof 25 yrs. RCP 8.5 Medium Design structure to Medium
(2050) consider 2100 loads, but
roof membrane for 2050.
Enclosure - Windows 30 yrs. RCP 8.5 High Framing around window Low
(2050) to support future shading
or additional panes.
Systems – HVAC - Cooling 15 yrs. RCP 8.5 Medium Ensure adequate space/ High
(2050) distribution to upgrade
for future climate.
Systems – HVAC - Heating
Systems – HVAC - Ventilation
Systems – Electrical
Systems – Lighting
Systems – IT &
Communications
Systems – Plumbing
Distribution
Systems – Plumbing Fixtures
Systems – Fire Protection
Systems – Vertical
Transportation
Site – Stormwater
Site – Landscape and Paving
Other (describe)
Other (describe)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 17
Section 2 – Climate Information

Reference Standards
BC Ministry of Environment, Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia - 2016 Update
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and-reporting/reporting/envreportbc/archived-
reports/climate-change/climatechangeindicators-13sept2016_final.pdf

Capital Region District, Climate Projections for the Capital Region - https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/climate-
action-pdf/reports/2017-07-17_climateprojectionsforthecapitalregion_final.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada, Computer Research Institute of Montréal, Ouranos, Pacific Climate Impacts
Consortium, Prairie Climate Centre, HabitatSeven; Climatedata.ca - https://climatedata.ca/

Fraser Basin Council, Climate Projections for the BC Northeast Region

https://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/CCAQ/fbc_ne_climatereport_web.pdf

Metro Vancouver, Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver - http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/air-

quality/AirQualityPublications/ClimateProjectionsForMetroVancouver.pdf

Metro Vancouver, Study of the Impacts of Climate Change on Precipitation and Stormwater Management
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/LiquidWastePublications/TMs-GHD-StudyImpacts-
ClimateChangePrecipitationStormwater-2018.pdf

Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC), Climate Explorer

https://www.pacificclimate.org/analysis-tools/pcic-climate-explorer

Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC), Future Shifted Weather Files

https://www.pacificclimate.org/data/weather-files

Additional Resources
Climate Change Scenarios
Government of Canada, Canadian Weather Year for Energy Calculation (CWEC)
https://climate.weather.gc.ca/prods_servs/engineering_e.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)*

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

Building and Systems Lifespans

ASHRAE, Equipment Life Expectancy chart*
https://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infhvac/ASHRAE_Chart_HVAC_Life_Expectancy.pdf

Building Owner’s and Managers Association (BOMA), Preventive Maintenance Guidebook*

https://icap.sustainability.illinois.edu/files/projectupdate/2289/Project%20Lifespan%20Estimates.pdf

Carbon Leadership Forum, Recommended guidelines for building component lifespans in whole building life cycle
assessment* - http://www.carbonleadershipforum.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/CLF_Recommendations_BuildingComponentLifespans_07-06-2018.pdf

New York City Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, NYC Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines, Version 4.0*
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/NYC_Climate_Resiliency_Design_Guidelines_v4-0.pdf

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 18
Section 2 – Climate Information

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of a building component assessment with respect to a future climate scenario in
Vancouver.

Note: This hypothetical assessment is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions and should not
be substituted for an actual building component assessment completed by the appropriate experts.

Building Component/ System

Green Roof Assembly

Figure 4. Vancouver Olympic Village Green Roof (©Vitaroofs International Inc., Joy Schmidt, by permission)

Sub-System Lifespan, Related IPCC Scenario & Year

Sub-System Lifespan IPCC Scenario & Year References
Roof Structure 80 years RCP 8.5 (2100) BOMA Preventative Maintenance
Guidebook
Insulation and waterproof 20 years RCP 8.5 (2040) Hydrotech Membrane Corp.
membrane
Roof Pavers 50 years RCP 8.5 (2080) Hanover Architectural Products
Growing Medium & Plants 10 years RCP 8.5 (2030) Hydrotech Membrane Corp.
Irrigation System 20 years RCP 8.5 (2040) Netafim Irrigation Inc.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 19
Section 2 – Climate Information

Top Climate Hazards (see Section 3)

Source: Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver, 2016
Climate Hazard RCP 8.5 (2050)* RCP 8.5 (2080)* References
Increasing summer Summer Days Summer Days Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver
temperatures and heat >25C= 55 days >25C= 79 days
waves
Summer droughts Dry spell duration Dry spell duration Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver
= 26 days = 29 days
Fall precipitation increases 5-day maximum 5-day maximum Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver
precipitation precipitation
= 178 mm = 199 mm
*Data for the available RCP scenario year may not align with the system’s estimated end-of-life. In this case, the project
team should either interpolate data between RCP scenario years or choose the more stringent scenario.

Sub-System Retrofit Feasibility, System Lifespan Interactions, Cost Impacts of Design for Future Climate
Sub-System Retrofit Potential system lifespan interactions Potential cost
feasibility for impacts of designing
later climate to future climate
Roof Structure N/A Design for peak loads and green roof Low
saturation thresholds using historical and
RCP 8.5 2100 precipitation data.
Insulation and waterproof High Ensure parapet design/height can Low
membrane accommodate future slope adjustments for
drainage and insulation thickness.
Roof Pavers High Paver height to consider potential changes None to Low
to plantings.
Growing Medium & Plants High Coordinate to ensure replacement can N/A
occur independent of irrigation system.
Irrigation System High Design system considering climate up to Medium
2040/2050. Ensure water delivery piping
designed up to 2080 climate conditions.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 20
Section 2 – Climate Information

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ Fee allocation for climate scientist or adaptation consultant OD
Financing ▪ Identify climate scenarios and other climate data to include in preliminary CS
climate risk assessment
▪ Include expected project and main systems lifespans in Owner’s Project OD
Requirements
Pre-Design ▪ Completed Section 2 of IBAMA framework See 2a-2c
Schematic Design ▪ Updated Section 2 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 2a-2c
▪ Update to system lifespan interaction comments in Section 2c based on See 2c
selected strategies
Design ▪ Updated Section 2 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 2a-2c
Development ▪ Expanded system lifespan interaction report based on revised strategies See 2c team
This should include all components connected to the strategies proposed

Construction ▪ Updated Section 2 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 2a-2c
Documents ▪ System lifespan interaction peer review. This should include all components Peer Reviewer
connected to strategies proposed
Project ▪ Site visit reports confirming systems built per interactions outlined in See 2c team
Construction Section 2c
As-built/ ▪ Final project report confirming systems built per interactions outlined in
Occupancy Section 2c
See 2c team
▪ Include climate thresholds and lifespan targets in systems manuals with
explanation for facility managers
Post-Occupancy ▪ Draft deferred maintenance plan indicating climate thresholds and lifespan See 2c team
targets.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 21
Section 3 – Climate Hazards

Section 3 – Climate Hazards

Description
This section assists project teams in identifying the top climate hazards using the scenarios that they have selected in
Section 2. Using the IBAMA Excel document, teams will identify up to ten climate hazards, and due to potential cost
limitations, expand upon a minimum of the top three of concern. In addition, at least one compounding hazard should
be investigated. These are the hazards that require immediate action. The remaining six hazards should be reviewed to
determine when and how they should be taken into consideration over the lifespan of the project. While not explicitly
part of the IBAMA framework, teams may include hazards that are not climate-based such as earthquakes or tsunamis.

Parameters
3a. Hazard Scoring
Parameter Notes Completed by
Based on the climate scenarios selected in Section 2a, identify up to
ten hazards that would likely occur during the lifespan of the project. Use existing municipal,
Include at least one compounding hazard. For each hazard, use the provincial or other official
worst-case scenario based on past, present and projected data. documentation to determine
and evaluate key hazards. Use
Using the Excel tool, assess each hazard for the following factors:
both projected and historical
i. IPCC Scenario & target year from Section 2 (for climate data. If this information is not
hazards) available, defer to guidance Led by AC &
ii. Frequency of occurrence (Ongoing, Multiple times/year, provided by climate scientists CS w/input
Annually, Every two years, Less often than every two years) and adaptation consultant. from AR, MU,
iii. Intensity/Severity (Catastrophic, Major, Moderate, Minor, NR, UTs &
Insignificant) Hazards may vary locally or on others as
iv. Anticipated duration of event and recovery to 90% a site-by-site basis as needed
function (Years, Months, Weeks, Days, Hours or less) compared to municipal or
v. Exposure of residents/asset to hazard (High, Medium, Low) regional information.
vi. Affected Area (Greater than regional, Regional Municipality,
Neighbourhood, Project Site) See Glossary of Terms in
vii. Variability of hazard projections (High, Medium, Low) Section 1 for definition of
compounding hazards.
Scores will be generated in the Excel tool for each hazard assessed.

3b-e. Top Hazards (see Appendix B for worksheets to assess additional hazards)
Parameter Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the hazard with the highest score from Section
3a.
i. Description of Hazard A Led by AC &
CS w/input
See Glossary of Terms in
List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with from AR, MU,
Section 1 for definition of
Hazard A NR, UT &
cascading impacts.
others as
ii. Potential Cascading Impact
needed
iii. Potential Cascading Impact
iv. Potential Cascading Impact

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 22
Section 3 – Climate Hazards

Reference Standards
BC Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy, Preliminary Strategic Risk Assessment for British Columbia
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/adaptation/prelim-strat-climate-risk-assessment.pdf

FEMA, Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Guide,
p.11* - https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1527613746699-
fa31d9ade55988da1293192f1b18f4e3/CPG201Final20180525_508c.pdf

Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Engineering Protocol - https://pievc.ca/protocol

US Department of Heath and Human Services, Threat/Hazard Assessment Module (THAM)*

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/RISC/Documents/risc-tham-narrative.pdf

Additional Resources
Capital Region District, Climate Projections for the Capital Region - https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/climate-
action-pdf/reports/2017-07-17_climateprojectionsforthecapitalregion_final.pdf

City of Vancouver, Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, 2018 Update and Action Plan
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/climate-change-adaptation-strategy.pdf

City of Vancouver, Resilient Vancouver Strategy, p.38 - https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/resilient-vancouver-strategy.pdf

Di Napoli, C. et al., (2018), Assessing heat-related health risk in Europe via the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI).
Int J Biometeorol 62, 1155–1165* - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1518-2

Emergency Management BC, Hazard Reference Guide for Local Authorities and First Nations
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergency-preparedness-response-
recovery/local-government/hrva/guides/hrva_hazard_reference_guide.pdf

U.S. Green Building Council, Assessment and Planning for Resilience*

https://www.usgbc.org/credits/assessmentresilience?return=/pilotcredits/new-construction/v4

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 23
Section 3 – Climate Hazards

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of a climate hazard assessment for a new low-income residential building in a suburb of
Victoria, BC. Residents are a combination of singles, families and seniors. The focus is primary on hazards that may directly
impact the project, but local and regional hazards should be evaluated for potential secondary impacts to the project. Data
used to determine hazard assumptions should be documented with appropriate references or citations.

Note: This hypothetical assessment is for illustrative purposes only. It is not necessarily representative of actual conditions or
hazards and should not be substituted for an actual hazard assessment completed by the appropriate experts.

Climate & Hazard Data Sources

Climate Projections for the Capital Region, 2017
Preliminary Strategic Risk Assessment for British Columbia, 2019
Capital Regional District, Coastal Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment, 2015
BC Hydro Storm Report, 2019
BC Ministry of Energy & Mines, Relative Earthquake Hazard Map of Greater Victoria, 2000

Figure 5. CRD - Fall Precipitation 2050s (RCP 8.5) Figure 6. CRD – 1-in-20 Hottest Day 2050s (RCP 8.5)
(Images from © Capital Regional District. (2017). Climate Projections for the Capital Region. Retrieved from
https://www.crd.bc.ca/about/data/climate-change. By permission from author.)

Figure 7. CRD – 2018 Windstorm Damage (©Robert Fraser via Victoria Buzz, by permission)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 24
Section 3 – Climate Hazards

3a. Hazard Scoring

Compounding Compounding
Hazard 1 Hazard 2 Hazard 3 Hazard 4 Hazard 5
Hazards Hazards

Summer Heat waves+

Category 7 Increasing drought + drought+
Hazard Name & Severe
or Higher Heatwave Autumn Tsunami* high water wildfires=
Description Windstorm
Earthquake* Precipitation demand from Poor Air
heat waves Quality

IPCC Scenario & RCP 8.5 RCP 8.5

n/a RCP 8.5 2080 n/a RCP 8.5 2080 RCP 8.5 2080
target year 2080 2080

Less often Less often Less often

Frequency of Multiple Every two Every two Every two
than every than every than every
occurrence times/yr. years years years
two years two years two years

Intensity/
Catastrophic Major Major Moderate Catastrophic Moderate Major
Severity
Anticipated
Duration of
Event & Years Months Days Weeks Years Months Weeks
Recovery to
90% function
Exposure of
residents/asset High Medium High Medium Low Medium High
to hazard

Greater than Greater than

Affected Area Regional Regional Regional Municipality Regional
regional regional

Variability of
hazard Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium
projections

Total Hazard
22 19 20 17 17 20 22
Score

3b. Top Hazard A

Parameter Additional Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the hazard with the highest score from Section
3a.
i. Category 7 earthquake* or higher – Score 22
Other cascading impacts.
List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with Consult with municipal
Hazard A. resilience officer for further
information.
ii. Power outages
iii. Supply chain interruptions
iv. Transportation disruption

*While IBAMA is conceived for climate hazards, project teams may choose to use it for geophysical hazards for preliminary analysis.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 25
Section 3 – Climate Hazards

3b. Top Hazard B

Parameter Additional Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the hazard with the second highest score from # of days >25C and
Section 3a. temperatures will increase
over time.
i. Heatwave – Score 20
Important to also consider
List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with
how humidity and the urban
Hazard B.
health island effect could
ii. Increase in mortality & morbidity will stress health services exacerbate the impact of
capacities. heatwaves beyond dry bulb
iii. Power interruptions if high electricity demand for cooling temperatures.
or stress to power infrastructure.
iv. Potential stress on water supply due to increased demand.

3c. Top Hazard C (Compounding Hazards)

Parameter Additional Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the hazard with the third highest score from
Section 3a.
i. Summer drought + high water demand – Score 20

List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with Increasing in severity between
Hazard C. the present and 2050.
ii. Increase in mortality & morbidity will stress health services
capacities.
iii. Reduction in local food availability/ Price increases.
iv. Biodiversity loss.

3d. Compounding Hazards

Parameter Additional Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the compounding hazards scenario with the
highest score from Section 3a.
Increasing summer temperatures + Seasonal drought +
Major wildfire = Poor Air Quality - Score 22
Based on a combination of
List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with the climate projections and
compounding hazards scenario. historical data. Wind direction
and rain are key variables.
i. Increase in mortality & morbidity will stress health services
capacities.
ii. Power outages.
iii. Impacts to water treatment & distribution services.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 26
Section 3 – Climate Hazards

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ Preliminary high-level climate hazard assessment – see Section 3a CS
Financing
Pre-Design ▪ Completed Section 3 of IBAMA framework
▪ Include key climate hazards in IBAMA summary report See 3a-3e

Schematic Design ▪ Updated Section 3 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 3a-3e
Design ▪ Updated Section 3 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 3a-3e
Development ▪ Peer-review evaluation report to include cross-verification of hazard PR
assessment with respect to proposed adaptation strategies, including initial
list developed in Section 3a
Construction ▪ Updated Section 3 of IBAMA framework & updates to IBAMA summary report See 3a-3e
Documents
Project ▪ Any updates to Section 3 of IBAMA framework based on evolving hazard See 3a-3e
Construction information, events or government reports
▪ Inclusion of any relevant changes to hazard information in IBAMA-related AC, CM
construction reports
As-built/ ▪ Summary of hazards targeted, specifics goals and strategies employed to AC, AR, SC, ST,
Occupancy target hazards, and potential hazards or adaptation goals not addressed ME, LA, FM
Post-Occupancy ▪ Include hazard information in resident education video FM, AC

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 27
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

Section 4 - Neighbourhood Resilience to Hazards

Description
This section helps project teams identify the resilience of a project’s immediate neighbourhood to the climate hazards
identified in Section 3. Adaptation and resilience issues are multi-scalar and cannot be resolved exclusively at the
building scale. Understanding the degree of neighbourhood resilience can help inform solutions, facilitating more cost-
effective strategies and better allocation of resources. In addition, increasing the lines of communication between the
project team and neighbourhood stakeholders will help foster long-term community resilience.

Obtaining the necessary information to effectively evaluate neighbourhood resilience may be challenging. It will require
input from the municipality’s adaptation planners and emergency managers, utility providers, local health authorities
and social services. This may exceed the capacity of the project team or even the municipality. As such, teams are
encouraged to complete the evaluation to the best of their abilities, taking a precautionary approach where information
is lacking. To simplify the exercise, teams can choose to assess only the most essential neighbourhood parameters
pertaining to the specific hazard being investigated.

Once an initial evaluation is done for the neighbourhood, the project team and municipality should consider sharing the
information for use on other projects.

Parameters
Evaluation of neighbourhood resilience parameters can be subjective. In order to control for this, it would be best for the
municipality to lead this process to ensure consistency across projects. If this is not possible, more than one stakeholder
with the relevant expertise should evaluate each parameter to expose differences in perspectives.

4a. Infrastructure
Parameter Notes Completed by
For each infrastructure type, list key dependencies (i.e. water Resilience Scoring (1-5):
infrastructure requires power; public transit infrastructure requires 1 = Low resilience, 3 =Average
fuel supply, etc.) resilience, 5 = High Resilience,
? = Uncertain, N/A = Not
Estimate the resilience of each neighbourhood infrastructure type
Applicable
with respect to the top hazards identified in Section 3, taking into
consideration key dependencies (i.e. water infrastructure resilience
When determining resilience
score is affected by the power infrastructure resilience score). If the
scores, consider factors such MU, NR, UT
degree of resilience is highly uncertain, indicate with a ‘?’ and follow
as: age, current physical (all
up with team members to determine next steps.
condition, estimated original applicable),
i. Stormwater infrastructure design criteria, service others as
ii. Sanitation infrastructure capacity, redundant design required
iii. Road infrastructure systems, maintenance
iv. Public transportation infrastructure schedules and budgets, past
v. Other transportation infrastructure (walking, cycling, etc.) system events, system
vi. Power infrastructure capacity with respect to future
vii. Water infrastructure climate projections.
viii. Communications infrastructure

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 28
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

4b. Built Environment

Parameter Notes Completed by
Evaluate the resilience of each built environment parameter listed Resilience Scoring (1-5):
below with respect to the top hazards identified in Section 3. Scores 1 = Low resilience, 3 =Average
may vary depending on type of hazard. For example, building density resilience, 5 = High Resilience,
might be desirable for power outages, but less desirable for heat ? = Unknown, N/A = Not
waves. If the degree of resilience is highly uncertain, indicate with a Applicable
‘?’ and follow up with team members to determine next steps.
When determining resilience
i. Building density
scores, consider factors such MU
ii. % Project-adjacent buildings resilient to hazard
as: age, physical condition,
iii. % Neighbourhood buildings resilient to hazard
service capacity, systems
iv. Hotel rooms/capita
redundancy, performance in
v. Resilience & reliability of hotel rooms to hazard
past hazard events.
vi. Resilience & reliability of resilience hubs/shelters to hazard
vii. Resilience of community facility buildings (e.g. schools,
libraries, churches) to hazard

Evaluate the proximity of the project with respect to each built Scoring*(1-5): 1 = Very distant,
environment neighbourhood parameter listed below. Consider each 3 = Within 20 min. walk/1.5km,
parameter with respect to the top hazards identified in Section 3. In 5 = Very close/adjacent, N/A =
some instances, proximity might not be desirable, in which case Not Applicable
scores should inverted.
*Invert scores if proximity is not
viii. Proximity of project to neighborhood resilience a desirable trait to increase
hubs/shelters resilience to hazard
ix. Proximity of project to healthy & affordable food PL or AR
x. Proximity to hospitals/clinics
xi. Proximity of project to banking services
xii. Proximity of project to shopping centers
xiii. Proximity of project to schools
xiv. Proximity of project to libraries
xv. Proximity of project to religious facilities
xvi. Proximity of project to other community facilities

4c. Natural Environment

Parameter Notes Completed by
Estimate the resilience of each natural environment parameter listed Resilience Scoring (1-5):
below with respect to the top hazards identified in Section 3. Scores 1 = Low resilience, 3 =Average
may vary depending on type of hazard. For example, more green resilience, 5 = High Resilience,
space could be a detriment in an area with high wildfire risk. If the ? = Unknown, N/A = Not
degree of resilience is highly uncertain, indicate with a ‘?’ and follow Applicable
up with team members to determine next steps.
When determining resilience MU
i. Outdoor air quality
scores for air and water
ii. Water quality
quality, consider existing
iii. % Open public space
government indicators and
iv. % Green space
historical data from past
v. % Land area at risk/exposure to hazard
events.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 29
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

4d. Transportation
Parameter Notes Completed by
Estimate the resilience of each transportation parameter listed Resilience Scoring (1-5):
below with respect to the top hazards identified in Section 3. Scores 1 = Low resilience, 3 =Average
may vary depending on type of hazard (i.e. flooding is likely to result resilience, 5 = High Resilience,
in low public transportation resilience, whereas heat waves may ? = Unknown, N/A = Not
minimally impact service). If the degree of resilience is highly Applicable
uncertain, indicate with a ‘?’ and follow up with team members to
determine next steps. When determining resilience
MU or PL
scores for transportation,
i. Frequency of bus service
consider resources such as
ii. Frequency of subway/train service
LEED v4.1 LT Credit: Access to
iii. Bicycle network
Quality Transit, LEED v4 ND
iv. Walkability
NPD Credit: Connected and
v. Points of access/entry to neighborhood
Open Community, Walk
Score®, and Bike Score®.

4e. Community Governance, Services, and Health

Parameter Notes Completed by
Evaluate the resilience of each community governance, services and Resilience Scoring (1-5):
health parameter listed below with respect to the top hazards 1 = Low resilience, 3 =Average
identified in Section 3. Scores may vary depending on type of hazard. resilience, 5 = High Resilience,
If the degree of resilience is highly uncertain, indicate with a ‘?’ and ? = Unknown, N/A = Not
follow up with team members to determine next steps. Applicable
i. Community resilience & emergency plan
When determining resilience MU
ii. Level of emergency preparedness to hazard
scores for governance, meet
iii. Resilience & hazard-related staff capacity
with municipal resilience
iv. Emergency management & resilience staff training
officers and emergency
v. City budget for resilience & emergency management
managers, and consult
vi. Emergency management communications to residents
resources such as ICLEI
vii. Map of hazard-related community assets
Canada to assist with
comparative references.
viii. Number of voluntary and religious organizations
ix. Hazard-related human resources within the community
When determining resilience
(e.g. firefighters, first aid responders, tradesperson, etc.)
scores for services, higher
x. Density of police/fire stations
quantities typically correlate MU, NR
xi. Density of fuel & charging stations
(though not always) with
xii. Quantity of commercial business & retail services
higher levels resilience.
xiii. Diversity of businesses & services

xiv. Available social services

xv. Community health – available health practitioners/100,000
residents
xvi. Community health - % of people with at least four people
Compare with provincial and
to confide in
federal averages to determine HA
xvii. Community health - % of people with a somewhat strong
resilience scores.
or very strong perception of community belonging
xviii. Community health – incidence rate of chronic &
communicable disease/ 100,000 residents

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 30
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

4f. Neighbourhood Demographics

Parameter Notes Completed by
Indicate the percentages of the following vulnerable populations.
i. % under 14
ii. % over 65
iii. % who don’t speak an official language
iv. % Indigenous
v. % ethno-racial Reference municipal data,
vi. % immigrants census data, or data from the MU, HA
vii. % single parent households local health authority.
viii. % single occupant residences
ix. % with disability
x. % without post-secondary certificate, diploma or degree
xi. % homeless
xii. % other demographics (gender, sexual orientation, etc.)

4g. Economy
Parameter Notes Completed by
Indicate dollar amounts for the following economic parameter.
i. Median annual household income

Indicate percentages of the following economic parameters.

Reference municipal data or
ii. % households > 30% income on housing MU
census data.
iii. % unemployed
iv. % not in labour force
v. % home ownership
vi. % commute by vehicle

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 31
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

Reference Standards
Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Engineering Protocol - https://pievc.ca/protocol

Additional Resources
City of Vancouver, Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit
https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/resilient-neighbourhoods-program.aspx

BC Centre for Disease Control, BC Community Health Data - http://communityhealth.phsa.ca/

British Columbia Environmental Protection & Sustainability, Air, Land & Water
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water

ICLEI Canada, Adaptation Resources for Communities

https://icleicanada.org/resources/

Metro Vancouver, Health Impact Assessment of Transportation and Land Use Planning Activities
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/HIA-Guidebook.pdf

NIST, Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems*
https://www.nist.gov/topics/community-resilience/planning-guide

Statistics Canada, 2016 Census - https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

US Green Building Council, LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction*

https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41#bdc

US Green Building Council, LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development*

https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version

Vancouver Coastal Health, Community Health Profiles

http://www.vch.ca/public-health/healthy-communities-population-health/community-health-profiles

Vancouver Coastal Health, Social Connection and Health

http://www.vch.ca/Documents/MHMC-SocialConnections-Report.pdf

Walk Score, Walk Score®* - https://www.walkscore.com/

Walk Score, Bike Score®* - https://www.walkscore.com/bike-score-methodology.shtml

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 32
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of a neighbourhood resilience assessment for a new independent living facility for senior
citizens in West Vancouver, BC. The resilience assessment is in reference to hypothetical heavy precipitation/ flash flooding.
As noted in this example, data and assumptions used to determine the neighbourhood resilience scores should be
documented with the appropriate references or citations, as well as noting the person completing each part of the
assessment. Parameters highlighted in green are those that would be most essential to assess for a heavy precipitation/
flash flooding scenario and cascading impacts.

Note: This hypothetical assessment is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions and should not
be substituted for an actual neighbourhood resilience assessment completed by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2050

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential, West Vancouver

Hazard Referenced
Heavy precipitation/ flash flooding

Potential Cascading Impacts

Limited transportation access & access to essential goods and services; sewage backup; power outages/shutdowns; risk
of electric shocks; natural gas shutdowns; communications shutdowns.

Figure 8. West Vancouver Assisted Living Facility Image Capture: Oct 2018 ©2019 Google

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 33
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

4a. Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding - Infrastructure

Parameter Resilience References/Citations Notes Completed
Score by

Stormwater 2 West Vancouver Increasing need for replacement and

infrastructure Stormwater
Infrastructure Asset
Management Plan
Sanitation 3 City of West Vancouver
infrastructure
Road infrastructure 2 City of West Vancouver
Public transportation 2 Coast Mountain Bus
infrastructure Operations Team
Other transportation 3 City of West Vancouver,
infrastructure Metro Vancouver
Power infrastructure 2 BC Hydro/ FortisBC
Water infrastructure 4 West Vancouver Water
Asset Management Plan
Communications 4 Telus/Bell/Shaw
infrastructure
upgrades of storm mains and culverts
between 2030-2050.
Bi-weekly garbage collection; weekly
collection of other materials. May be
interrupted due to road conditions.
Several roads, especially E-W, likely
unnavigable due to flooding.
Some routes likely impeded or
interrupted due to flooding.
Boats and water vehicles may be able
to assist with evacuation or transport
of goods if main roads impeded.
Power supply and/or gas may need to
be shut off in some areas in a flood.
Water supply main upgrades in
progress.
Communications infrastructure has
independent backup power.

Figure 9. West Vancouver Neighbourhood Map

Imagery ©2019 Google, Imagery ©2019 CNES/Airbus, IMTCAN, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2019

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 34
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience
4b. Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding - Built Environment
Parameter Resilience
Score
Building density
% Project-adjacent
buildings resilient to
hazard
% Neighbourhood
buildings resilient to
hazard
Hotel rooms/capita
Resilience &
Reliability of hotel
rooms to hazard
Resilience & reliability
of resilience
hubs/shelters to
hazard
Resilience of
community facility
buildings to hazard
Proximity to
neighborhood
resilience
hubs/shelters
Proximity to healthy
& affordable food
Proximity to
hospitals/clinics
Proximity to banking
services
Proximity to shopping
centres
Proximity to schools
Proximity to libraries
Proximity to religious
facilities
Proximity to other
community facilities
© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved.
References/ Citations Notes Completed
by
4 https://westvancouve Low-mid density and compactness
r.ca/home-building- facilitates relocation and evacuation.
property/planning
2 City of West Many homes vulnerable to basement
Vancouver floods, some to ground floor flooding.
2 Many homes vulnerable to basement
floods, some to ground floor flooding.
Some public facilities better prepared.
1 Closest hotels in North Vancouver. A
few B&Bs in West Vancouver.
1 Motel-style lodging in North Vancouver
doesn’t appear to be flood resilient.
n/a No neighbourhood resilience hub
identified.
2 City of West Most buildings not designed to address
Vancouver flooding though some are moving
critical equipment from basements.
1 City of West No neighbourhood resilience hub
Vancouver currently identified by City of West
Vancouver.
3 Access to IGA, Loblaws and Whole
Foods. 15-30+ min walk. Prices vary.
3 https://medimap.ca/ No hospitals. Community Health Centre
and clinics within 5-20 min walk.
4 15 min walk to multiple full-service
bank branches.
3 https://www.shoppar Park Royal Shopping Centre. Outdoor
kroyal.com/ mall so temporary sheltering not viable.
5 https://westvancouve Pauline Johnson Elementary School.
rschools.ca/ecole- Elevated ground floor may provide
pauline-johnson- some flood protection.
elementary/
5 https://westvanlibrar West Vancouver Memorial Library. Not
y.ca/ flood resistant but upper level spaces
available for temporary shelter.
5 https://www.ststephe St. Stephen’s Anglican Church. Building
nschurch.ca/ not flood resistant but congregation
provides community services.
5 Community centre, ice arena, aquatic
centre, and seniors’ activity centre are
all adjacent to project.
IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 35
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

4c. Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding - Natural Environment

Parameter Resilience References/Citations Notes Completed
Score by

Outdoor air n/a

quality
Water quality 4 City of West Vancouver Potential for stormwater overflow into
water quality reports. buildings. Civil Engineer to verify
potential impacts/risks for project.
% Open public 5 Large green open space areas near the
space project.
% green space 4 Majority of dwellings have <50% site
coverage, with much of the remaining
site having green space for stormwater
absorption.
% Land area at 2 Higher grounds to the North increases
risk/exposure to neighbourhood vulnerability.
hazard

4d. Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding - Transportation

Parameter Resilience References/Citations Notes Completed
Score by

Frequency of bus ? https://westvancouver.ca/ Will depend on degree of flooding.

service transportation-roads
Frequency of n/a No train service in the area.
subway/train
service
Bicycle network 1 Will depend on the degree of flooding.
Most seniors may not have capacity to
cycle.
Walkability 1 https://www.walkscore.co Normally very walkable. Will depend
m/score/187-28th-street- on degree of flooding.
west-vancouver-central
Points of 3 Marine Drive & Highway 99 main
access/entry to thoroughfares for emergencies.
neighborhood

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 36
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

4e. Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding - Community Governance, Services, and Health

Parameter Resilience References/Citations Notes Completed
Score by

Community resilience 2 City of West Vancouver, North New plan in early stages of
& emergency plan Shore Emergency Management development.
Level of emergency 3 North Shore Emergency
preparedness to Management
hazard
Resilience & hazard- 4 City of West Vancouver, North
related staff capacity Shore Emergency Management
Emergency 3 City of West Vancouver, North Coastal Marine
management & Shore Emergency Management Management Plan working
resilience staff training group as resource.
City budget for 2 City of West Vancouver
resilience & emergency
management
Emergency 3 City of West Vancouver Monthly emails & updates
management to website. Working on
communications to phone data notifications.
residents
Map of hazard-related 1 No map currently available.
community assets
Community hazard- ? Need to determine count of
related human local tradespeople.
resources
Number of voluntary 3 City of West Vancouver High number of
and religious organizations but need to
organizations be mobilized for hazard.
Density of police/fire 3 https://westvancouver.ca/home-
stations building-property/emergency-
preparedness
Density of fuel & ? May become flooded
charging stations
Quantity of 4 West Vancouver Chamber of Specific focus on essential
commercial business & Commerce services
retail services
Diversity of businesses 4 West Vancouver Chamber of Specific focus on essential
& services Commerce services
Social & community 5 City of West Vancouver, Senior
services Manager of Community Services
Available health 3 BC Community Health Profile – Equal to BC Average.
practitioners West Vancouver
People to confide in 4 Vancouver Coastal Health, Social 8% higher than Metro
Connection and Health Vancouver.
Community belonging 5 18% higher than Metro
Vancouver.
Rate of chronic & 4 BC Community Health Profile – 25% lower than BC average.
communicable West Vancouver
diseases

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 37
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

4f. Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding - Neighbourhood Demographics

Parameter % References/Citations Notes Completed by

% under 14 14%
% over 65 28% Significantly higher elderly
population compared to
Greater Vancouver Region.
% who don’t speak an 15%
official language
% Indigenous 0.6%
% ethno-racial 36%
% immigrants 45%
% single parent 14% Census Canada – 2016
households Profile
% single occupant 27%
residences
% with disability ? Need to connect with health
& social services to identify
disabled residents in the
community.
% without post-secondary 31.8%
certificate, diploma or
degree
% homeless See notes 2020 Homeless Count in 121 homeless people on
Metro Vancouver – BC Non- North Shore.
Profit Housing Association

4g. Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding - Economy

Parameter $ or % References/Citations Notes Completed by

Median household income $89,808 Higher income than Greater

Vancouver Region.
% households > 30% 31%
income on housing Census Canada – 2016
% unemployed 5.5% Profile
% not in labour force 48%
% home ownership 75%
% commute by vehicle 80%

Key Assessment Conclusions

▪ Stormwater infrastructure is currently not sized to meet anticipated 2050 overland flooding levels.
▪ Further assessment of flood risk to road transportation infrastructure is required, as is flood risk to key essential
services and businesses in the region. This will inform viable adaptation goals and strategies.
▪ Opportunity to investigate retrofits/upgrades to community facilities for use as temporary shelter or storage of
essential supplies. Currently most facilities are not flood resilient.
▪ High percentage of elderly population can potentially overtax emergency, evacuation and medical services.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 38
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ List of municipal, neighbourhood, health authority, infrastructure and utility OD
Financing representatives
Pre-Design ▪ Completed Section 4 of IBAMA framework See 4a-4g
Schematic Design ▪ Updated Section 4 of IBAMA framework See 4a-4g
▪ Assessment report of any proposed neighbourhood-related strategies using PL, MU, NR,
Section 4 assessment others as
needed
Design ▪ Updated Section 4 of IBAMA framework See 4a-4g
Development ▪ Report on development of any proposed neighbourhood-related strategies PL, MU, NR,
others as
needed
Construction ▪ Updated Section 4 of IBAMA framework See 4a-4g
Documents ▪ Updated report on any proposed neighbourhood-related strategies PL, MU, NR,
others as
needed
Project ▪ Updated contact list of municipal, neighbourhood, health authority, OD
Construction infrastructure and utility representatives
▪ Updated report on any proposed neighbourhood-related strategies PL, MU, NR,
others as
needed
As-built/ ▪ Final report on neighbourhood-related strategies for facility manager PL, MU, NR,
Occupancy including updated and abbreviated Section 4 assessment others as
needed
Post-Occupancy ▪ Regular updates to contact list of municipal, neighbourhood, health FM, RR
authority, infrastructure and utility representatives
▪ Annual check-in & report with municipal & neighbourhood representatives OD, FM, RR
to review original neighbourhood assessment, strategies and adjustments

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 39
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

Sections 5 & 6 - Neighbourhood Assets and Risks

Description
Drawing from the information in Section 4, this section helps project teams identify potential neighbourhood assets and
risks with respect to the top climate hazards identified in Section 3. These assets and risks will help inform adaptation
and resilience strategies for the project. For example, if limited food access during a flood is a significant risk, then the
project may allocate more space for non-perishable food storage. Conversely, if community facilities have the capacity to
shelter vulnerable residents during a heat wave, the project may decide to forgo cooling within individual units.

Due to differences in risk perceptions, it is advisable to have multiple stakeholders involved in the assessment. If
possible, this exercise should be done as part of an integrated team meeting with the local municipality. Once key
neighbourhood assets have been defined, the project team and municipality should carry out any additional analysis
required to confirm adequate resilience of the assets to the hazards identified. If there are neighbourhood resilience
projects in process, municipal representatives should outline goals and anticipated timeframes. Similarly, the
municipality should confirm the project team’s assessment of neighbourhood risks and identify any additional risks.

Parameters

5. Neighbourhood Assets
Outline as many neighbourhood assets as relevant that may improve project resilience to each of the top hazards identified
in Section 3. Use sufficient nuance and detail to enable project teams to consider the viability of neighbourhood assets as
potential adaptation strategies for the project. When determining viability for the project, take into consideration that the
asset will likely be needed for the larger community during and after the hazard.
Given that some assets may not be available throughout the full life expectancy of the project, clarify the duration that the
asset may be available, or if the duration is uncertain. In addition, specify space, time and other limitations associated with
the asset (e.g. community facility can accommodate 300 people as cooling centre during the daytime only). For
neighbourhood resilience initiatives currently in process, specify goals and anticipated project completion.

5a. Neighbourhood assets for Hazard A

(see Appendix B for worksheets to outline assets for additional hazards)
Asset Description of neighbourhood asset Duration Space & time limitations Completed
(short, by
medium,
long, ?)
Asset 1
OD, RR, AR,
FM, AC, PL,
MU, NR,
Asset 2
others if
needed (SC,
ST, ME, LA,
CS)
Asset 3

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 40
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

Asset Description of neighbourhood asset Duration Space & time limitations Completed
(short, by
medium,
long, ?)
Asset 4

Asset 5

Asset 6
OD, RR, AR,
FM, AC, PL,
MU, NR,
Asset 7
others if
needed (SC,
ST, ME, LA,
CS)
Asset 8

Asset 9

Asset 10

6. Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities & Risks

Based on the neighbourhood resilience assessment in Section 4, identify neighbourhood risks that may impact the project
with respect to each of the top hazards identified in Section 3. Neighbourhood risks are determined as a function of the
hazard (probability, frequency, severity, exposure, etc.) and neighbourhood vulnerabilities. In describing the risks, use
sufficient nuance and detail to enable project teams to develop effective project adaptation strategies. Take into
consideration the lifespan of the project in the assessment.

Step 1. Based on the lowest resiliency scores in Section 4 (score of 3 or less), list at least ten neighbourhood vulnerabilities to
each of the top hazards. In identifying vulnerabilities, reference only the Section 4 parameters relevant to the hazards. Rank
the vulnerabilities from highest to lowest with respect to how they may directly or indirectly impact the project during and
following the hazard event. When ranking vulnerabilities, identify first those that have the greatest impact on the health
and safety of project occupants, followed by impacts to the building/ property, and lastly by other impacts, such as those on
the community. Several vulnerabilities can be ranked equally (i.e. using the same number) if there is uncertainty.

Step 2. Based on the product of the vulnerability ranking and the individual hazard score from Section 3, identify a minimum
of the five highest neighbourhood risks (highest scores) for each hazard, noting the estimated risk time frame. More risks can
be included as deemed appropriate by the project team.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 41
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

6a. Neighbourhood vulnerabilities & risks to Hazard A

(see Appendix B for worksheets to identify vulnerabilities and risks for additional hazards)
Neighbourhood Vulnerability to Vulnerability Hazard A Risk score & Risk time Completed
Hazard A ranking score ranking frame by
(from H=10 to (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
L=1) Section 3 hazard score) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. OD, RR, AR,

FM, AC, PL,
MU, NR,
others if
6. needed (SC,
ST, ME, LA,
CS)

7.

8.

9.

10.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 42
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

Reference Standards
FEMA, Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Guide*
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1527613746699-
fa31d9ade55988da1293192f1b18f4e3/CPG201Final20180525_508c.pdf

Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Engineering Protocol - https://pievc.ca/protocol

US Department of Heath and Human Services, Threat/Hazard Assessment Module (THAM)*

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/RISC/Documents/risc-tham-narrative.pdf

Additional Resources
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Healthcare and Public Health Risk Assessment Toolkit*
https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/RISC/Pages/default.aspx

City of Vancouver, Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, 2018 Update and Action Plan
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/climate-change-adaptation-strategy.pdf

City of Vancouver, Resilient Vancouver Strategy - https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/resilient-vancouver-strategy.pdf

Emergency Management BC, Hazard Reference Guide for Local Authorities and First Nations
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergency-preparedness-response-
recovery/local-government/hrva/guides/hrva_hazard_reference_guide.pdf

ICLEI Canada, Changing Climate, Changing Communities - https://icleicanada.org/project/changing-climate-changing-

communities-guide-and-workbook-for-municipal-climate-adaptation/

NIST, Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems*
https://www.nist.gov/topics/community-resilience/planning-guide

Preliminary Strategic Risk Assessment for British Columbia - https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-

change/adaptation/prelim-strat-climate-risk-assessment.pdf

Public Safety Canada, All Hazards Risk Assessment Methodology Guidelines

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ll-hzrds-ssssmnt/ll-hzrds-ssssmnt-eng.pdf

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 43
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of a neighbourhood assets and risks assessment for a new independent living facility for
senior citizens in West Vancouver, BC. The assets and risk assessed are in reference to how a heavy precipitation/ flash
flooding hazard may impact the neighbourhood and are based on hazard information and cascading impacts established
in Section 3 and neighbourhood resilience assessment from Section 4.

Note: This hypothetical assessment is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions, assets or risks,
and should not be substituted for actual neighbourhood assets and risks assessment completed by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2050

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential, West Vancouver

Hazard Referenced
Heavy precipitation/ flash flooding

Potential Cascading Impacts

Limited access to transportation & essential goods and services; sewage backup; power outages/shutdowns, risk of
electric shocks; natural gas shutdowns; communications shutdowns.

5a. Neighbourhood assets for Hazard A – Heavy Precipitation/ Flash Flooding

Asset Description of neighbourhood asset Duration Space, time & other limitations Completed
by
Asset 1 High degree and frequency of Unknown
emergency management
Capacity of municipal
communications with the community,
emergency management and
including key seniors’ organizations.
social services may vary over
the life of the project
Asset 2 Fairly high degree of municipal Unknown
depending upon financial and
capacity to manage emergencies.
human resources and
municipal priorities.
Asset 3 Robust social services for seniors. Unknown

Asset 4 Large green open space areas near the Medium to Cost and permitting associated
project. Potential to retrofit them to Long with retrofitting spaces and
manage and divert increased infrastructure to manage
stormwater. additional stormwater.

Asset 5 Nearby residential lots have >50% Medium More detailed analysis required
green space for stormwater to determine potential
absorption. absorption capacity.

Asset 6 Project adjacent to multiple Medium to Most community buildings are

community organizations such as Long. not flood resilient and would
local school, library, community require some retrofitting for
centre, church, aquatic centre, etc. use.

6a. Neighbourhood vulnerabilities & risks to Hazard A – Heavy Precipitation/ Flash Flooding

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 44
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

Neighbourhood Vulnerability to Vulnerability Hazard score Risk score & Risk time Completed
Heavy Precipitation/Flash Flooding ranking ranking frame by

Aging stormwater infrastructure Immediate

cannot accommodate near-term or 11 22 to medium
projected peak precipitation levels. term
Road transportation network Medium to
vulnerable to flooding. 10 20
long term
Aging power and gas infrastructure
may require shutdown during event. 4 8 Immediate

Higher elevation land to the north

increases the neighbourhood’s 12 24 Immediate
vulnerability to overland flooding.
The majority of buildings in the
neighbourhood are not flood Medium-
resilient to projected precipitation 7 14
term
levels.
Lack of shelter facilities within the Medium-
community. 9 18
term
2.0
No publicly designated community
resilience hub to mobilize for flood 5 10 Immediate
event.
Most community facilities are not
flood resilient to projected Medium-
8 16
precipitation levels. term

A high percentage of elderly people Immediate

within the community. 6 12 to medium
term
~15% of population does not speak
English create emergency
management communication 2 4 Immediate
challenges.
No updated municipal emergency
management plan. 1 2 Immediate

Very limited budget for municipal

emergency management. 3 6 Immediate

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 45
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

Figure 10. West Vancouver Immediate Neighbourhood Map

Imagery ©2019 Google, Imagery ©2019 CNES/Airbus, IMTCAN, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2019

Assessment Notes & Follow-up

Risk Description of Comments & follow-up Completed
neighbourhood risk by
Risk 1 Higher elevation land to Verify if additional water runoff modeling can be done to
the north determine risk to project.
Risk 2 Aging Stormwater Currently planned upgrades anticipated to take five years.
Infrastructure Need to confirm if designed for future peak precipitation
projections.
Risk 3 Vulnerable road Evacuation and delivery of goods and services to the facility
infrastructure may be challenging. Investigate evacuation scenario
options.
Risk 4 Lack of emergency Review long-term planning options with municipality.
shelter facilities within
the community
Risk 5 Most community Municipality to follow up with community facility managers
facilities not flood to discuss potential cost-effective flood resilience
resilient strategies.
Risk 6 Neighbourhood buildings Increases overall community risk and will potentially
not flood resilient overburden the capacity of municipal emergency services.
Risk 7 High percentage of Will make evacuation strategies more challenging.
elderly within the
community

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 46
Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ See Section 4
Financing OD

Pre-Design ▪ Completed Sections 5 & 6 of IBAMA framework See 5a-d/6a-d

Schematic Design ▪ Updated Sections 5 & 6 of IBAMA framework See 5a-d/6a-d
▪ Assessment report of any proposed neighbourhood-related strategies using PL, MU, NR,
Section 5 & 6 assessments others as
needed
Design ▪ Updated Sections 5 & 6 of IBAMA framework See 5a-5/6a-d
Development ▪ Report on development of any proposed neighbourhood-related strategies PL, MU, NR,
using Section 5 & 6 assessments others as
needed
Construction ▪ Updated Sections 5 & 6 of IBAMA framework See 5a-5/6a-d
Documents ▪ Updated report on development of any proposed neighbourhood-related PL, MU, NR,
strategies others as
needed
Project ▪ See Section 4 OD
Construction ▪ Updated report on development of any proposed neighbourhood-related PL, MU, NR,
strategies others as
needed
As-built/ ▪ Final report on neighbourhood-related strategies for facility manager PL, MU, NR,
Occupancy including updated and abbreviated Section 5 & 6 assessments others as
needed
Post-Occupancy ▪ Regular updates to contact list of municipal, neighbourhood, health FM, RR
authority, infrastructure and utility representatives
▪ Annual check-in & report with municipal & neighbourhood representatives OD, FM, RR
to review original neighbourhood risk & assets assessment, and make
adjustments as required

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 47
Section 7 – Project Risks

Section 7 - Project Risks

Description
Drawing from the neighbourhood assets and risks identified in Sections 5 & 6 and the general project information
identified in Section 1, this section helps project teams identify vulnerabilities and potential risks to the project with
respect to each of the climate hazards identified in Section 3. This will help inform adaptation and resilience strategies
for the project. For example, if limited mobility increases residents’ risks to heat waves, project teams may elect to
provide an in-unit cooling solution instead of solely providing common area cooling.

Due to differences in risk perceptions, it is advisable to have multiple stakeholders involved in the assessment, including
those who may not be part of the core project team, such as an equity consultant or an Indigenous Knowledge Holder. If
possible, this exercise should be done as part of an integrated project team meeting. After an initial evaluation, project
risks should be revisited and re-confirmed once adaptation goals are established in Section 8.

Parameters

7. Project Vulnerabilities & Risks

Considering each of the top hazards identified in Section 3, review the project information in Section 1 to identify project
vulnerabilities. Project risks are determined as a function of the hazard (probability, frequency, severity, exposure, etc.) and
project vulnerabilities. In addition, review the neighbourhood risks identified in Section 6 and consider if any should be
included as critical project risks for the hazard in question. Take into consideration the lifespan of the project in the
assessment.

Step 1. Using the information in Section 1, list at least ten project vulnerabilities to the hazard. Describe the vulnerabilities in
sufficient detail to inform potential adaptation goals and strategies. Consider physical, social, operational and economic
vulnerabilities over the project’s lifespan.

Step 2. Rank the vulnerabilities from highest to lowest with respect to how they may directly or indirectly impact the project
during and following the hazard event. When ranking vulnerabilities, identify those that would have the greatest impact on
the health and safety of project occupants, followed by impacts to the building and property, and lastly by other types of
impacts. If needed, several vulnerabilities can be ranked equally (i.e. using the same number).

Step 3. Based on the product of the vulnerability ranking and the individual hazard score from Section 3, identify at
minimum, the five highest project risks (highest scores). Include any key neighbourhood risks of relevance. Given the use of
future climate projections, note the estimated risk time frame.

Examples of risks:
• An elderly population with low mobility would pose a high risk during a heat wave.
• A sloped site would increase the risk of structural destabilization from frequent overland flooding.
• Few community facilities with backup power could increase project risks during a long winter power outage.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 48
Section 7 – Project Risks

7a. Project vulnerabilities & risks to Hazard A

(see Appendix B for worksheets to outline vulnerabilities and risks for additional hazards)
Project Vulnerability to Hazard A Vulnerability Hazard A Risk score & Risk time Completed
(list key neighbourhood risks if ranking score ranking frame by
applicable) (from H=10 to (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
L=1) Section 3 hazard score) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

OD, RR, FM,

6.
AD, AR,
others if
needed
7.

8.

9.

10.

Neighbourhood risks (if applicable)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 49
Section 7 – Project Risks

Reference Standards
FEMA, Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Guide*
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1527613746699-
fa31d9ade55988da1293192f1b18f4e3/CPG201Final20180525_508c.pdf

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, Envision* – https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision/use-envision/

Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Engineering Protocol - https://pievc.ca/protocol

U.S. Green Building Council, Assessment and Planning for Resilience*

https://www.usgbc.org/credits/assessmentresilience?return=/pilotcredits/new-construction/v4

Additional Resources
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Healthcare and Public Health Risk Assessment Toolkit*
https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/RISC/Pages/default.aspx

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

Public Safety Canada, All Hazards Risk Assessment Methodology Guidelines

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ll-hzrds-ssssmnt/ll-hzrds-ssssmnt-eng.pdf

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 50
Section 7 – Project Risks

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of a project vulnerability and risk assessment for a new low-income residential building in a
suburb of Victoria, BC. Residents are a combination of singles, families and seniors, including some with disabilities. The
project risk assessment is in reference to a compounding hazards scenario of increasing summer temperatures combined
with seasonal drought, and a nearby major wildfire that results in poor air quality.

Note: This hypothetical assessment is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions or risks and
should not be substituted for an actual project risk assessment completed by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2050

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential Address, Colwood

Hazard Referenced
Compounding Hazards: Increasing summer temperatures + seasonal drought+ major wildfire resulting in poor air quality.

Cascading Impacts
Power outages; impacts to water treatment and distribution; stress on health service capacities; supply chain stresses.

Figure 11. Low-Income Rental Residential Building, Colwood (Image courtesy of Cascadia Architects Inc., by permission.)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 51
Section 7 – Project Risks

7d. Project vulnerabilities & risks to Compounding Hazards –

Increasing summer temperatures + Seasonal drought + Major wildfire = Poor Air Quality
Project Vulnerability to Vulnerability Compounding Risk score & Risk time Completed
Compounding Hazards ranking Hazards score ranking frame by

15-20 % of residents have limited

8 19 Immediate
mobility and can’t easily displace.
Low income residents w/ limited
5 12 Immediate
ability to pay for cooling.
Low number of building staff per
3 7 Immediate
resident limits management abilities.
Limited shading and trees on project Medium-
site increases exposure to high heat.
2 2.4 5
term
Small operating budget limits ability
6 14 Immediate
to pay high electricity bills.
Requirements for large asphalt Medium-
1 2
parking, increasing heat exposure. term
Construction budget currently Medium-
7 17
doesn’t account for cooling systems. term
Neighbourhood Risk - Low walkability
& public transit reduces ability to Immediate
displace to temporary facilities.
Neighbourhood Risk – Few existing
community facilities with adequate Immediate
cooling & air filtration systems.

Assessment Notes & Follow-up

Risk Description of project
risk
Risk 1 Disabled residents at
high risk to hazard.
Risk 2 Construction budget
doesn’t account for
cooling systems.
Risk 3 Low operating budget –
limits funds for common
area cooling/filtration.
Risk 4 Low income residents
may limit cooling &
filtration use.
Risk 5 Few existing community
facilities with adequate
cooling & air filtration.
Comments & follow-up Completed
by
May not be able to easily displace to community cooling
centre w/ air filtration during hazard event.
Using IBAMA process, determine if other solutions are
possible, if and when cooling is necessary, and potential
additional costs.
Assess potential common area electricity costs based on
hazard frequency, duration and severity.
Assess potential unit electricity costs based on hazard
frequency, duration and severity.
Identify existing community facilities with adequate
systems and establish potential agreement to shelter high
risk residents during a hazard event.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 52
Section 7 – Project Risks

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ Include a short list of potential project vulnerabilities when developing the
Financing Owner’s project requirements OD

Pre-Design ▪ Completed Section 7 of IBAMA framework See 7a-d

Schematic Design ▪ Updated Section 7 of IBAMA framework See 7a-d
▪ Assessment report of any proposed adaptation strategies using Section 7 AR, AC, others
assessment as needed
Design ▪ Updated Section 7 of IBAMA framework See 7a-d
Development ▪ Report on development of any proposed adaptation strategies AR, AC, others
as needed
▪ Risk assessment review included in DD peer-review report PR
Construction ▪ Updated Section 7 of IBAMA framework See 7a-d
Documents ▪ Report on development of any proposed adaptation strategies AR, AC, others
as needed
Project ▪ Report on development of any proposed adaptation strategies AR, AC, others
Construction as needed
As-built/ ▪ Include abbreviated project risk assessment in final report to facility AR, AC, others
Occupancy manager. as needed
Post-Occupancy ▪ Annual check-in & report to review original project risks assessment and OD, FM, RR
make adjustments as required

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 53
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

Description
This section provides the opportunity for the project team to outline their climate adaptation goals based on the project
information in Section 1 and the assets and risks identified in Sections 5, 6, & 7. Adaptation goals should be developed in
concert with mitigation and sustainability goals to ensure as much alignment as possible. These goals will inform the
adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies developed in Sections 10 & 11. The project team should review
Section 8 & 9 goals as the project evolves and revise them if required.

Parameters

8. Climate Adaptation Goals

Selection of the appropriate adaptation goals should be as aspirational or as realistic as deemed appropriate by the owner,
taking into account the project and neighbourhood information from Sections 1 and 4, and the assets and risks identified in
Sections 5-7. Adaptation goals should be considered with respect to the project’s overall purpose and principles, as outlined
in Section 1.

Adaptation goals for residential buildings can be grouped into three main categories, which are often interrelated:
A. Goals pertaining to occupants and building staff
B. Goals pertaining to protection of the asset/ property
C. Other goals (e.g. economic, neighbourhood/community, infrastructure)

In order to make goals specific, measurable and possible to implement, goals should generally be structured as follows:
Occupants/ Building Staff
1. Identify hazard(s) and associated risks for the target IPCC climate scenario and year.
2. Establish the criteria for the occupants’ essential needs relevant to the risks. Essential needs include:
▪ Thermal comfort criteria (temperature and humidity)
▪ Air quality standards
▪ Minimum power & communications
▪ Minimum potable water & hot water
▪ Basic food and nutritional requirements
▪ Sanitary requirements (toilets, sinks, trash & recycling)
▪ Access to medicine & medical devices
▪ Safety & security requirements
▪ Minimum physical & mental health requirements (accessibility, daylight, outdoor access, etc.)
▪ Other health-related standards
3. Identify occupant-related goal during and following the hazard event. Examples of goals:
▪ Shelter in unit
▪ Shelter in building common room
▪ Shelter in immediate neighbourhood
▪ Evacuate safely and shelter in a safe region
▪ Evacuate safely, shelter in safe region, and return to functional building
4. Determine the minimum timeframe/duration/recovery period that the goals are required for.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 54
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

Asset/ Property
1. Identify hazard(s) and associated risks for the target IPCC climate scenario and year.
2. Identify asset/property-related goal during and following the hazard event. Examples of goals:
▪ No damage
▪ Minor damage that still enables occupants to shelter-in-place
▪ No damage to components or systems with >20-year lifespan
▪ No damage to structural or enclosure components
▪ Total damage not to exceed $X million or X% of building value
3. Determine the minimum timeframe/duration/recovery period that the goals are required for.
Community & Other Goals
1. Identify hazard(s) and associated risks for the target IPCC climate scenario and year.
2. Identify other goals during and following the hazard event. Examples of goals:
▪ Support food distribution for X additional community members/day
▪ Ensure residents can have adequate on-site childcare if community daycares are impacted
▪ Amass an emergency fund of $X to support recovery efforts
3. Determine the minimum timeframe/duration/recovery period that the goals are required for.

Adaptation goals should be outlined by considering at minimum the top three project risks identified in Section 7 for each of
the top hazards. Additional risks should be included if possible. Neighbourhood assets and risks identified in Sections 5 and 6
should be considered when establishing goals that rely on or contribute to the surrounding community. Goals should be
developed with a balance of aspiration and realism considering other priorities (program, site, budget, added value, etc.).
Describe the goals in sufficient detail to inform potential strategies to be developed in Section 10.

8a. Adaptation Goals for Hazard A

(see Appendix B for additional worksheets to list adaptation goals for the other key hazards)
Recap of Top Risks and Minimum Occupant Essential Needs Notes Completed by
Minimum top three risks from Section 7a):

OD, RR, FM,

AR, AC, others
Relevant minimum occupant essential needs: as needed per
hazard & risks.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 55
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

8a. Adaptation Goals for Hazard A (continued)

(see Appendix B for additional worksheets to list adaptation goals for the other key hazards)
Adaptation Goals Goal Type Timeframe/ Notes Completed by
(occupant, Duration/
asset, other) Recovery

OD, RR, FM,

AR, AC, others
as needed per
hazard & risks.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 56
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

Reference Standards
ASHRAE, ASHRAE Standard 55 – Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy* -
https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-55-thermal-environmental-conditions-for-human-
occupancy

Arup, REDi Rating System (Non-climate earthquake hazards)*

https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/redi-rating-system

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, Envision* – https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision/use-envision/

U.S. Green Building Council, Passive Survivability and Back-up Power During Disruptions*
https://www.usgbc.org/credits/passivesurvivability?return=/pilotcredits/new-construction/v4

WELL Building Institute, WELL Building Standard, v.2* - https://v2.wellcertified.com/v/en/concepts

Additional Resources
Adaptation & Resilience Goals
NIST, Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems, Volume I, Section 4*
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1190v1.pdf

US Department of Homeland Security, Ready.gov, Evacuation* - https://www.ready.gov/evacuation

US Department of Homeland Security, Ready.gov, Shelter* - https://www.ready.gov/shelter

Essential Needs
ASHRAE, 2017 ASHRAE Handbook, Chapter 10, Indoor Environmental Health* -
https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/covid-19/i-p_f17_ch10indoorenvironmentalhealth.pdf

Centre for the Built Environment, 2019 Thermal Comfort Tool* - https://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/

City of Vancouver, Energy Modelling Guidelines v. 2.0 - https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/guidelines-energy-modelling.pdf

Di Napoli, C. et al., (2018), Assessing heat-related health risk in Europe via the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI).
Int J Biometeorol 62, 1155–1165* - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1518-2

Government of Canada, Residential Indoor Air Quality Guidelines - https://www.canada.ca/en/health-

canada/services/air-quality/residential-indoor-air-quality-guidelines.html

New York City Housing Authority, Sheltering Seniors from Extreme Heat*
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/n20-sheltering-seniors-from-extreme-heat.pdf

Sphere Association, The Sphere Handbook, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response*
https://spherestandards.org/handbook-2018/

US Environmental Protection Agency, Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)* - https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq

US Environmental Protection Agency, Wildfires and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)* - https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-
iaq/wildfires-and-indoor-air-quality-iaq

World Food Programme, Supply Assessment of Goods and Services for Essential Needs*
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000074196/download/?_ga=2.16383411.443759423.1587002039-
1899257735.1587002039
* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 57
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of adaptation goals established for a new low-income residential building in a suburb of
Victoria, BC. Residents are a combination of singles, families and seniors. This includes a population with disabilities. The
adaptation goals are in reference to the project risk assessment example from Section 7 for a compounding hazards
scenario of increasing summer temperatures combined with seasonal drought, and a nearby major wildfire that results in
poor air quality. Goals also consider Sections 4, 5 & 6 as required.

Note: This hypothetical example is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions or goals and should
not be substituted for actual adaptation goal setting completed by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2050

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential Address, Colwood

Hazard Referenced
Compounding Hazards: Increasing summer temperatures + seasonal drought+ major wildfire resulting in poor air quality.

Cascading Impacts
Power outages; impacts to water treatment and distribution; stress on health service capacities; supply chain stresses.

Figure 12. Greater Victoria - Wildfire & Drought Period, August 2018 (©Adrian Lam, Time Colonist, by permission)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 58
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

8d. Adaptation Goals for Compounding Hazards –

Increasing summer temperatures + Seasonal drought + Major wildfire = Poor Air Quality
Description of Adaptation Goals Notes Completed by
Minimum top three risks from Section 7d):
1. Disabled residents at higher risk to hazard. Due to their low
mobility, they cannot be easily displaced to other parts of the All risks listed are
building or evacuated. immediate and
increase over time
2. Construction budget doesn’t account for cooling systems. through the project’s
lifespan.
3. Low operating budget – the organization may have limited funds to
pay for additional common area cooling/ air filtration.

Relevant minimum occupant essential needs: Though water

1. Indoor temperatures should not exceed 26C @ 50% RH. shortages are a
longer-term risk,
essential water needs
2. WELL Building Standard - Air Precondition 01 for minimum indoor
should be considered
air quality requirements.
in the project design:
50 l/ person/day for
3. Sufficient emergency power to ensure cooling and air quality needs
72-hour event.
for duration of event.

Adaptation Goal Goal Type Timeframe/

Duration/
Recovery
Shelter low mobility/disabled residents in Occupant Near-term, About 20% of
their units during hazard. for entirety residents anticipated
of event to be low mobility or
otherwise disabled.

Ensure that other occupants can be Occupant Near & long- Review Section 4
sheltered in some part of the facility or term, for assessment for
community during hazard. entirety of options. Note Section
event 7 risks of low
walkability & transit
and limited facilities
with cooling and
filtration.

Minimize operating costs of cooling and Other Near & long- Project electricity
indoor air quality strategies. term/Annual cost increases over
costs project lifespan.

Maximize passive cooling solutions to avoid Occupant Near & long- Consider current and
the need for mechanical cooling. term, for future climate data
entirety of for passive solutions.
event

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 59
Section 8 – Climate Adaptation Goals

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ N/A
Financing
Pre-Design ▪ Completed Section 8 of IBAMA framework See 8a-d
Schematic Design ▪ Updated Section 8 of IBAMA framework See 8a-d
▪ Assessment report of any proposed strategies using adaptation goals AR, AC, others
established in Section 8 as needed
Design ▪ Updated Section 8 of IBAMA framework, including potential goal revisions See 8a-d
Development ▪ Report on development of proposed strategies with respect to adaptation AR, AC, others
goals as needed

Construction ▪ Updated Section 8 of IBAMA framework, including potential goal revisions See 8a-d
Documents ▪ Updated report on development of proposed strategies with respect to AR, AC, others
adaptation goals as needed
Project ▪ Updated report on development of proposed strategies with respect to AR, AC, others
Construction adaptation goals as needed
As-built/ ▪ Include list of adaptation goals in final report to facility manager. AR, AC, others
Occupancy as needed
Post-Occupancy ▪ Annual check-in & report to review original adaptation goals and make OD, FM, RR
adjustments as required
▪ If feasible, integrate finalized adaptation goals into land title and property OD
disclosure information.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 60
Section 9 – Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

Section 9 - Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

Description
This section provides the opportunity for the project team to outline their climate mitigation and sustainability goals.
These should be developed in concert with adaptation goals to ensure as much alignment as possible. Mitigation and
sustainability goals may be mandated by government requirements, based on an institution’s standards, or determined
by the project team. These goals will inform the adaptation, mitigation and sustainability strategies developed in
Sections 10 & 11. The project team should review Section 8 & 9 goals as the project evolves and revise them if needed.

Parameters

9. Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

Climate mitigation goals can be grouped into four main categories, all of which share the greater objective of reducing
global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:
A. Operational GHG Emissions – GHG emissions associated with the operation of a building. This includes emissions
from non-renewable energy consumption, and from refrigerant and fire suppression gas leakage.
B. Embodied GHG Emissions – GHG emissions associated with extraction, production, transportation and disposal of
construction materials in a building, as well as the construction, renovation and repair of the building.
C. Renewable Energy Production – Production of on-site energy from renewable resources such as solar and wind.
D. GHG Sequestration – Capture and storage of GHGs, typically through landscape-based solutions.

Examples of climate mitigation goals:

▪ Operational GHG Emissions – Meeting BC Energy Step Code 4 targets.
▪ Embodied GHG Emissions – 25% reduction in embodied GHG emissions as compared to a similar building.
▪ Renewable Energy Production – 10% of the project’s electricity demand met by on-site renewables energy.
▪ GHG Sequestration – Planting 100 hardwood trees to absorb ~100 metric tons of C02 over the next 40 years.

Sustainability goals not captured under climate mitigation would likely fall under the categories below, in alignment with
LEED, WELL and similar green building rating systems:
A. Location & Site – Goals pertaining to the project location and neighbourhood, as well as the project site.
B. Water – Water use reduction and water quality goals. Stormwater management falls under adaptation goals.
C. Materials (goals not covered by embodied GHG emissions) – Goals pertaining to lifecycle impacts of materials,
hazardous chemicals or elements used in building materials, responsible manufacturing and procurement, etc.
D. Health & Indoor Environment – Goals pertaining to thermal comfort, air quality, daylight, acoustics, active design,
social connectivity, food, etc.
E. Community, Equity & Environmental Justice – Goals pertaining to accessible design, community access and
engagement, affordable housing, health equity, etc.

Examples of sustainability goals:

▪ Location & Site – All landscaping must promote biodiversity of local species.
▪ Water - 50% potable water use reduction.
▪ Materials – Natural materials should be certified to be responsibly sourced.
▪ Health & Indoor Environment – Meet WELL Building Standard Light Precondition 01.
▪ Community, Equity & Environmental Justice – Minimum 25% of units accessible to those with disabilities.

Climate mitigation and sustainability goals should be considered with respect to the project’s overall purpose and
principles, as outlined in Section 1.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 61
Section 9 – Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

List all applicable mitigation and sustainability goals in Sections 9a) and 9b) below. When setting goals, take into account
future climate projections based the project’s lifespan.

9a. Climate Mitigation Goals (see Appendix B for additional worksheet)

Description of Mitigation Goals
Mitigation Goal Goal Type Notes Completed by
(operational GHGs,
embodied GHGs,
renewable energy,
GHG sequestration)

OD, AR, SU,

SC, ST, ME,
FM, CM,
others as
needed.

9b. Sustainability Goals (see Appendix B for additional worksheet)

Description of Sustainability Goals
Sustainability Goal Goal Type Notes Completed by
(location & site,
water, materials,
health, other, etc.)

OD, AR, SU,

SC, ST, ME, LA,
FM, CM,
others as
needed.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 62
Section 9 – Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

Reference Standards
ASHRAE, ASHRAE Standard 90.1* https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/90-1-portal

BC Housing, Design Guidelines & Construction Standards

https://www.bchousing.org/publications/BCH-Design-Guidelines-Construction-Standards.pdf

Canada Building Council, LEED Rating System v.4

https://www.cagbc.org/CAGBC/Programs/LEED/LEEDv4/LEED_v4_Resources.aspx

City of Vancouver, Climate Emergency Response - https://council.vancouver.ca/20190424/documents/cfsc1.pdf

Enterprise Community Partners, 2020 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria*

https://www.greencommunitiesonline.org/

Government of British Columbia, BC Energy Step Code - https://energystepcode.ca/

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, Envision* – https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision/use-envision/

International Living Future Institute, Living Building Challenge v.4.0*

https://www2.living-future.org/LBC4.0?RD_Scheduler=LBC4

International WELL Building Institute, WELL Building Standard v.2 Pilot* – https://v2.wellcertified.com/v/en/overview

National Research Council of Canada, 2017 National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings
https://nrc.canada.ca/en/certifications-evaluations-standards/codes-canada/codes-canada-publications/national-
energy-code-canada-buildings-2017

Passive House Institute, Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low Energy Building Standard*
https://www.passivehousecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Passive-House-and-
EnerPHit_building_criteria.pdf

Additional Resources
American Institute of Architects, New York City Chapter, Embodied Energy: A Primer for Architects*
https://www.aiany.org/membership/oculus-magazine/article/fall-2019/embodied-energy-a-primer-for-architects/

City for All Women Initiative (CAWI), Advancing Equity and Inclusion: A Guide for Municipalities
https://www.cawi-ivtf.org/sites/default/files/publications/advancing-equity-inclusion-web_0.pdf

City of Toronto, Zero Emissions Building Framework – https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9875-Zero-

Emissions-Buildings-Framework-Report.pdf

City of Vancouver, Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest-city-action-plan.pdf

City of Vancouver, Renewable City Strategy (2015-2050) - https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/renewable-city-strategy-

booklet-2015.pdf

City of Vancouver, Zero Emissions Buildings Plan - https://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/zero-emissions-

buildings.aspx#zero-emissions-building-plan

World Green Building Council, Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront* - https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/bringing-

embodied-carbon-upfront

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 63
Section 9 – Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of mitigation and sustainability goals established for a supportive housing building in
central Vancouver, BC. Residents are homeless or at risk of homelessness, aboriginal peoples, women with children fleeing
abusive relationships, people with mental and physical disabilities, and people with addictions. The largest proportion of
residents are youths. Mitigation goals are in reference to a combination of municipal requirements and institutional
standards.

Note: This hypothetical example is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions or goals and should
not be substituted for actual mitigation and sustainability goal setting completed by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2080

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential Address, Vancouver

Figure 13. Supportive Housing Project, Vancouver (Image courtesy of NSDA Architects, by permission. Photographer: Derek Lepper)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 64
Section 9 – Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

9a. Climate Mitigation Goals

Description of Mitigation Goals
Mitigation Goal Goal Type Notes Completed by

Meet Passive House criteria for maximum Operational GHGs See City of Vancouver’s Green
space heating demand (or load), cooling Buildings Policy for Rezonings,
demand (or load), air leakage, and total Near Zero Emissions Buildings
primary energy renewable (PER). Path.

40% reduction in embodied GHG emissions Embodied GHGs See City of Vancouver’s Climate
as compared to a 2018 baseline Emergency Response.

1% of annual project electricity Renewable Energy See City of Vancouver’s

consumption comes from on-site Renewable City Action Plan.
renewable energy, excluding heating
electricity.

9b. Sustainability Goals

Description of Sustainability Goals
Sustainability Goal Goal Type Notes Completed by

Manage 80% percentile rainfall event per Location & Site See LEED v4.1 – SS: Rainwater
LEED SS Rainwater Management credit Management

Meet City of Vancouver’s water efficiency Water See City of Vancouver’s Water
requirements + showerhead flow reduction Safety and Efficiency
of additional 20%. Requirements

Meet 2018 BC Building Code + LEED EQ Health – Air See LEED v4.1 – EQ: Minimum
Minimum Indoor Air Quality Prerequisite Quality Indoor Air Quality Performance

Eliminate Red-list materials where there is Materials See Living Building Challenge
significant direct exposure to occupants Imperative 13 – Red List
(finishes, hardware, furniture, etc.)

Include at least five active design measures Health See Center for Active Design’s
to promote the physical activity of building Active Design Guidelines
occupants.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 65
Section 9 – Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ N/A
Financing
Pre-Design ▪ Completed Section 9 of IBAMA framework See 9a-b
Schematic Design ▪ Updated Section 9 of IBAMA framework See 9a-b
▪ Assessment report of any proposed strategies for mitigation and AR, SU, LA,
sustainability goals established in Section 9 Engineers
Design ▪ Updated Section 8 of IBAMA framework, including potential goal revisions See 9a-b
Development ▪ Report on development of proposed strategies for mitigation and AR, SU, LA,
sustainability goals Engineers
Construction ▪ Updated Section 9 of IBAMA framework, including potential goal revisions See 9a-b
Documents ▪ Updated report on development of proposed strategies for mitigation and AR, SU, LA,
sustainability goals Engineers
Project ▪ Updated report on development of proposed strategies for mitigation and AR, SU, LA,
Construction sustainability goals Engineers, CM
As-built/ ▪ Include list of mitigation and sustainability goals in final report to facility AR, SU, others
Occupancy manager. as needed
Post-Occupancy ▪ Annual check-in & report to review original sustainability goals and make OD, FM, RR
adjustments as required

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 66
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

Section 10 - Adaptation Strategies

Description
This section provides a roadmap for project teams to develop viable adaptation strategies based on the project risks
outlined in Section 7, the climate adaptation goals outlined in Section 8, and within the context of the project’s overall
purpose and principles outlined in Section 1.

Development of adaptation strategies will be iterative. Initial strategies proposed for each hazard should be evaluated to
determine feasibility with respect to the project requirements in Section 1, and adaptation goals for the other top
hazards identified in Section 3. Strategies that are deemed to have significant conflicts should be revised. As the design
and construction process advances, strategies and goals will be further developed and potentially revised.

Parameters

10. Adaptation Strategies

As part of an integrated team workshop, develop an initial list of adaptation strategies for each of the top hazards based on
the adaptation goals outlined in Section 8. The workshop should ideally include the owner, members of the design and
construction team, adaptation and sustainability consultants, and building management. Various team members can then
follow up to determine viability of the proposed strategies.

Consider strategies that pertain to design and construction, management and operations, and/or neighbourhood assets.
Some strategies may not be effective or permanently in place throughout the full life expectancy of the project. As such,
clarify the anticipated timeframes or time limitations of each strategy. Reference the project and system lifespan
information in Section 2 to note where adjustments to the strategy would be required over the lifespan of the project (e.g.
allocate additional roof structure, space and duct size for cooling system retrofit in 15 years).

10a. Adaptation Strategies for Hazard A

(see Appendix B for additional worksheets to outline adaptation strategies for the other key hazards)

Step 1 – List adaptation goals and occupant essential needs (if applicable) from Section 8
Adaptation Goals Occupant Essential Needs Completed by
1. 1.

2. 2.
AD

3. 3.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 67
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

Step 2 – Develop initial adaptation strategies noting time limitations and lifespan considerations
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Time Limitations Lifespan Completed by
(see Section 8) Considerations
(see Section 2)
1.

2.
OD, AR, AD,
3. ME, SC, LA, ST,
CM, Others as
4. applicable

5.

Step 3 – Determine if the proposed adaptation strategies meet main project requirements from Section 1
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Meets Code & Zoning Meets Program & OPR Completed by
Requirements*
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD
OD, AR, AD,
3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD ME, SC, LA, ST,
CM, SU,
Others as
4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD applicable

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

*If regulatory requirements are not met, identify opportunities to address conflicts with government agencies.

Step 4 – Determine that the proposed adaptation strategies do not conflict with adaptation goals for the other top hazards.
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Avoids Avoids Avoids Completed by
Conflicts Conflicts Conflicts w/
w/Hazard B w/Hazard C Compounding
Hazards
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

OD, AR, AD,
3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD ME, SC, LA, ST,
CM, SU,
Others as
4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD applicable

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

If a strategy conflicts significantly with adaptation goals for the other top hazards, it should be revised or eliminated.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 68
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

10e. Follow-up on Selected Adaptation Strategies for all key hazards

List selected strategies for all key hazards, and follow-up tasks required (e.g. cost estimates, technical analysis, etc.)
Selected Adaptation Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Varies
8.
depending
upon strategy
proposed
9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 69
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

Reference Standards
FEMA, Flood Resistant Provisions of the International Codes (2015)*
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/100537

Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, Fortified Construction Standards*
https://ibhs.org/guidance/fortified-construction-standards/

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officers (IAPMO), Flood Resistant Provisions of the 2015 Uniform
Codes* - https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/111741

International Code Council, CodeMaster - Flood Resistant Design (2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, ASCE 7-16, ASCE 24-14)*
https://shop.iccsafe.org/codemaster-flood-resistant-design-2015-ibc-2015-irc-and-asce-7-10-24-14-1.html

International Code Council, International Wildland-Urban Interface Code*

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IWUIC2018/effective-use-of-the-international-wildland-urban-interface-code

U.S. Green Building Council, LEED Resilient Design Pilot Credits*

https://www.usgbc.org/articles/revised-leed-resilient-design-pilot-credits-now-available

U.S. Green Building Council, RELi 2.0 Rating Guidelines for Resilient Design & Construction*
https://www.usgbc.org/resources/reli-20-rating-guidelines-resilient-design-and-construction

Additional Resources
Strategies for Multiple Hazards
BC Housing, BC Energy Step Code, Design Guide Supplement S3 on Overheating and Air Quality
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/bc-energy-step-code-design-
guide&sortType=sortByDate

Enterprise Community Partners, Ready to Respond: Strategies for Multifamily Building Resilience*
https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/resources/ready-respond-strategies-multifamily-building-resilience-13356

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Climate Resilience Strategies for Buildings in New York
State* - https://ap.buffalo.edu/content/dam/ap/PDFs/NYSERDA/Climate-Resilience-Strategies-for-Buildings.pdf

University of Minnesota, Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Buildings*

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen4-17.pdf

Urban Green Council, Building Resiliency Task Force Report*

https://www.urbangreencouncil.org/sites/default/files/2013_brtf_summaryreport_0.pdf

Strategies for Extreme Heat

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers – Heat Waves
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

City of Vancouver, Extreme Heat, Cool Buildings - https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2014-

16_Extreme%20Heat%20Cool%20Buildings_Tesche.pdf
New York City Housing Authority - Sheltering Seniors from Extreme Heat*
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/n20-sheltering-seniors-from-extreme-heat.pdf
RDH Building Science, UBC - Designing Climate Resilient Multifamily Buildings
https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-05/REPORT_UBC_Climate%20Resilient%20Multifamily%20Buildings.pdf

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 70
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

Strategies for Floods

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers – Flood Events
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

FEMA, Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings* – https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/34270

FEMA, Protecting Building Utility Systems from Flood Damage* - https://www.fema.gov/media-

library/assets/documents/3729

Strategies for Poor Air Quality

BC Centre for Disease Control, Evidence Review: Filtration in institutional settings during wildfire smoke events
http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-
gallery/Documents/Guidelines%20and%20Forms/Guidelines%20and%20Manuals/Health-
Environment/WFSG_EvidenceReview_FiltrationinInstitutions_FINAL_v3_edstrs.pdf

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers – Air Quality
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

Strategies for Power Outages

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers – Power Outages and
Emergencies - https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-
construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

City of Toronto, Minimum Backup Power Guidelines for MURB's - https://www.toronto.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2017/11/91ca-Minimum-Backup-Power-Guideline-for-MURBs-October-2016.pdf

FEMA, Emergency Power Systems for Critical Facilities* - https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/101996

Strategies for Precipitation & High Wind Events

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers – Severe Storms
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

FEMA, Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and Hurricanes* - https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3140

Strategies for Snow, Frost & Freeze-Thaw Events

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers – Chronic Stressors
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

FEMA, Snow Load Safety Guide* - https://www.fema.gov/media-library-

data/7d8c55d1c4f815edf3d7e7d1c120383f/FEMA957_Snowload_508.pdf

Strategies for Wildfires

BC Housing, Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience (MBAR) Design Discussion Primers – Fire
https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-design-construction/MBAR&sortType=sortByDate

FEMA, Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Handbook for Public Facilities* – https://www.fema.gov/media-

library/assets/documents/16568

The co-operators, FireSmart Canada Home Development Guide - https://firesmartcanada.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2019/10/FireSmart_Canada_Home_Development_Guide.pdf

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 71
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

Case Study Example

Below is a hypothetical example of adaptation strategies proposed for a new low-income residential building in a suburb of
Victoria, BC. Residents are a combination of singles, families and seniors. This includes a population with disabilities. The
adaptation strategies are based on the goals established in Section 8 in reference to a compounding hazards scenario of
increasing summer temperatures combined with seasonal drought, and a nearby major wildfire that results in poor air
quality. Potential strategies also consider the neighbourhood assessments from Sections 4, 5 & 6.

Note: This hypothetical example is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions or strategies and
should not be substituted for actual adaptation strategy development by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2050

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential Address, Colwood

Hazard Referenced
Compounding Hazards: Increasing summer temperatures + seasonal drought+ major wildfire resulting in poor air quality.

Cascading Impacts
Power outages; impacts to water treatment and distribution; stress on health service capacities; supply chain stresses.

Other Top Hazards Assessed

Major Earthquake, Increasing precipitation & flash flooding, Summer drought

Figure 14. Low-Income Rental Residential Building, Colwood (Image courtesy of Cascadia Architects Inc., by permission.)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 72
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

10d. Adaptation Strategies for Compounding Hazards

Increasing summer temperatures + Seasonal drought + Major wildfire = Poor Air Quality

Step 1 – List adaptation goals and occupant essential needs from Section 8
Adaptation Goals Occupant Essential Needs Completed by
1. Shelter low mobility/disabled residents in 1. Indoor temperatures should not exceed 26C
their units during hazard (20% of @ 50% RH.
population).
2. WELL Building Standard Air Precondition 01
2. Ensure that other occupants can be for minimum indoor air quality
sheltered in some part of the facility or requirements.
OD, FM, RR,
community during hazard.
3. Sufficient power to ensure cooling and air ME
3. Minimize operating costs of cooling and quality needs.
indoor air quality strategies.
4. Maximize passive cooling solutions to avoid
the need for mechanical cooling.

Step 2 – Develop initial adaptation strategies noting time limitations and lifespan considerations
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Time Limitations Lifespan Completed by
(see Section 8) Considerations
(see Section 2)
1. Following thermal comfort modeling for Low mobility Based on modeling
present and future climates, allocate the occupants may exceed units may require
most thermally comfortable units to low available comfortable future cooling. Verify AR, ME, FM, RR
mobility/disabled residents. units at various times. for future overheating.
2. Light coloured cladding and roofing to Roof replacement in 20 AR, ME
reduce solar heat gain. years.

3. Provide deciduous vegetation that amply Trees will not reach full LA, ME
shades first two floors and common area. height for 10-15 years.

4. Provide cooling in common room. Consider Cooling unit lifespan of AR, ME

expanding size of common room to increase 15 years. Ensure space
capacity. for future climate.

5. Create ventilated backup common room in AR, ME

below ground parking. Locate below
landscaped area and consider skylight.

6. Shuttle to Juan de Fuca recreation centre for Operating hours of Uncertain – based on AD, FM
daytime sheltering. recreation centre. rec centre’s systems.
7. Minimum MERV 15 filters on rooftop HRVs Relies on storage of HRV unit lifespan of 15- ME
units during wildfire events, ideally MERV 17. filters & replacement. 20 years.

8. Purchase or lease supply of portable air Units may get lost or Air cleaners have 5-10 ME, AD
cleaners and store in parking storage area. damaged. May have year lifespan.
insufficient qty.
9. Emergency standby natural gas generator to Generator lifespan of ME
run HRV system and common room cooling. 3,0000 hours.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 73
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

Step 3 – Determine if the proposed adaptation strategies meet main project requirements from Section 1
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Meets Code & Zoning Meets Program & OPR Completed by
Requirements
1. Allocation of coolest units to disabled. Y Partial OD, FM, ME

2. Light coloured cladding and roofing. Y Y AR

3. Provide deciduous vegetation that amply Y TBD LA

shades first two floors and common area.

4. Common room cooling & enlarged area. TBD Partial AR, ME

5. Second common room in parking area. TBD Y AR, ME

6. Shuttle to Juan de Fuca recreation centre. Y TBD AD, FM

7. MERV 15-17 filters on rooftop HRVs units. Y TBD ME

8. Purchase portable air cleaners. Y N ME, FM

9. Emergency generator for HRV and cooling. TBD Y ME, AR

Step 4 – Determine if the proposed adaptation strategies conflict with adaptation goals for the other top hazards.
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Avoids Avoids Avoids Completed by
Conflicts Conflicts Conflicts
w/Earthquake w/Flooding w/Drought
1. Allocation of coolest units to disabled. Y TBD Y OD, FM, ME

2. Light coloured cladding and roofing. Y Y Y AR

3. Deciduous vegetation that amply shades TBD TBD TBD LA

first two floors and common area.

4. Common room cooling & enlarged area. Y TBD Y AR, ME

5. Second common room in parking area. Y N Y AR, ME

6. Shuttle to Juan de Fuca recreation centre. Y Y Y AD, FM

7. MERV 15-17 filters on rooftop HRVs units. Y Y Y ME

8. Purchase portable air cleaners. Y N Y ME, FM

9. Emergency natural gas generator for HRVs N TBD Y ME, AR

and cooling.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 74
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

10e. Follow up on Selected Adaptation Strategies

List selected strategies and follow-up tasks required (e.g. code compliance, cost & technical analysis, etc.)
Selected Adaptation Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1. Allocation of coolest units to disabled. Thermal comfort model to ME, RR, FM
determine if feasible; Meet with
RR & FM to determine viability.
2. Light coloured cladding and roofing. Confirm design choices with OD AR
and municipality.
3. Provide deciduous vegetation that amply Select drought resilient species; LA, SC, ST
shades first two floors and common area. design drainage for flooding;
verify earthquake impacts.
4. Common room cooling & enlarged area. Verify if common room AR, SC
vulnerable to future flooding.
Verify electricity costs to ensure
ops budget is sufficient.
6. Shuttle to Juan de Fuca recreation centre. Meet w/municipality to discuss. AD, FM
7. MERV 15-17 filters on rooftop HRVs units. Review filter storage & ME, FM
replacement. Verify air pressure
thresholds for HRV’s.
9. Emergency natural gas generator for HRVs Verify sizing, loads, regulations, ME, AR
and cooling. costs. Review propane option.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 75
Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ General % budget allocation for adaptation measures beyond standard OD
Financing requirements, and quantify potential cost-benefits if possible
Pre-Design ▪ N/A
Schematic Design ▪ Completed Section 10 of the IBAMA framework See 10a-e
▪ Assessment report of proposed adaptation/resilience strategies including AR, AD, LA,
strategy evaluation scores Engineers
▪ Preliminary cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM
Design ▪ Updated Section 10 of IBAMA framework See 10a-e
Development ▪ Updated assessment report of proposed adaptation/resilience strategies AR, AD, LA,
Engineers
▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM
▪ Peer-review evaluation report of strategies to confirm alignment with initial Peer Reviewer
adaptation and resilience goals, as well as proposed adjustments
Construction ▪ Updated Section 10 of IBAMA framework See 10a-e
Documents ▪ Report on development of proposed adaptation and resilience strategies AR, SU, LA,
▪ Further development of technical strategies in drawings and specifications Engineers

▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM

Project ▪ Ongoing construction meeting agenda item for IBAMA strategies with notes CM
Construction included in meeting minutes
▪ Monthly IBAMA-related construction report CM
▪ Schedule of IBAMA-related site visits to review implementation of strategies CM
▪ IBAMA site visit reports by IBAMA design & construction leads AR, AD, LA,
Engineers
As-built/ ▪ Summary of adaptation and resilience goals and strategies
Occupancy ▪ Manual and/or training video for building managers and operators related AR, AD, others
to proposed adaptation/resilience strategies and associated hazards as needed

Post-Occupancy ▪ Testing and inspections schedule for adaptation/ resilience-related systems FM, ME, CX
▪ Annual commissioning of building systems Agent
▪ Resident education video including for hazard preparedness best practices OD, RR
▪ Schedule of hazard preparedness drills, including liaising with municipal FM, RR
and utility representatives

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 76
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Section 11 - Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Description
This section is dedicated to developing viable mitigation and sustainability strategies based on the climate mitigation
and sustainability goals outlined in Section 9 and within the context of the project’s overall purpose and principles
outlined in Section 1. Strategies should take into account the changing climate throughout the building’s lifespan.

Development of mitigation strategies will be iterative. Initial strategies proposed should be evaluated to determine
viability with respect to the project requirements in Section 1 and ensure no major conflicts with the other mitigation
and sustainability goals. Strategies that are deemed to have significant conflicts should be revised. Strategies that are
deemed to have significant conflicts should be revised.

Parameters

11. Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

As part of an integrated team workshop, develop an initial list of mitigation and sustainability strategies based on the goals
outlined in Section 9. The workshop should ideally include the owner, members of the design and construction team,
sustainability and adaptation consultants, and building management. Various team members can then follow up to
determine viability of the proposed strategies.

Initial selection of mitigation strategies should be as aspirational or pragmatic as deemed appropriate by the owner, taking
into account project information from Section 1 and neighbourhood information from Section 4. For each of the goals,
consider strategies that relate to design and construction-related as well as management and operations.

11a. Climate Mitigation Strategies

(see Appendix B for additional worksheets to outline supplemental mitigation and sustainability strategies)

Step 1 – List mitigation goals from Section 9 and develop an initial list of mitigation strategies.
Mitigation Goals Proposed Mitigation Strategies Completed by
1.

2.

3.

4. OD, AR, SU, ME,

ST, CM, LA, AD,
Others as
5.
applicable

6.

7.

8.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 77
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Step 2 – Determine if the proposed mitigation strategies meet the main project requirements from Section 1 and do not
conflict with other mitigation or sustainability goals listed in Section 9.
Proposed Mitigation Strategies Meets Codes Meets Program Aligns w/ Completed by
& Zoning* & OPR Other Goals
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD OD, AR, SU,

ME, ST, CM,
LA, AD, Others
5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD
as applicable

6. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

7. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

8. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

*If regulatory requirements are not met, identify opportunities to address conflicts with government agencies.

Step 3. List selected strategies and follow-up tasks (e.g. verification for code compliance, cost & technical analysis, etc.)
Selected Mitigation Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1.

2.

3.

4. Varies
depending
5. upon strategy
proposed
6.

7.

8.

If a strategy does not comply with project requirements or conflicts significantly with other mitigation or sustainability
goals, it should be further investigated, revised or eliminated.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 78
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

11b. Sustainability Strategies

Step 1 – List sustainability goals from Section 9 and develop an initial list of sustainability strategies.
Sustainability Goals Proposed Sustainability Strategies Completed by
1.

2.

3.

4. OD, AR, SU, ME,

ST, CM, LA, AC,
5. Others as
applicable
6.

7.

8.

Step 2 – Determine if the proposed sustainability strategies meet the main project requirements from Section 1 and do not
conflict with other mitigation or sustainability goals listed in Section 9.
Proposed Sustainability Strategies Meets Codes Meets Program Aligns w/ Completed by
& Zoning* & OPR Other Goals
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD Varies

depending
5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD upon strategy
proposed
6. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

7. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

8. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

*If regulatory requirements are not met, identify opportunities to address conflicts with government agencies.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 79
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Step 3. List selected strategies and follow-up tasks (e.g. verification for code compliance, cost & technical analysis, etc.)
Selected Sustainability Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1.

2.

3.

4. Varies
depending
5. upon strategy
proposed
6.

7.

8.

If a strategy does not comply with project requirements or conflicts significantly with other mitigation or sustainability
goals, it should be further investigated, revised or eliminated.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 80
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Reference Standards
International Code Council, 2018 International Green Construction Code*
https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-189-1

BC Housing, BC Energy Step Code - Design Guide – https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-

design-construction/bc-energy-step-code-design-guide&sortType=sortByDate

Canada Building Council, LEED Rating System v.4

https://www.cagbc.org/CAGBC/Programs/LEED/LEEDv4/LEED_v4_Resources.aspx

Enterprise Community Partners, 2020 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria*

https://www.greencommunitiesonline.org/

International WELL Building Institute, WELL Building Standard v.2 Pilot* – https://v2.wellcertified.com/v/en/overview

Passive House Institute, Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low Energy Building Standard*
https://www.passivehousecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Passive-House-and-
EnerPHit_building_criteria.pdf

Additional Resources
American Institute of Architects, Ten Steps to Reducing Embodied Carbon*
https://www.aia.org/articles/70446-ten-steps-to-reducing-embodied-carbon

ASHRAE, ASHRAE Green Guide* https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/ashrae-greenguide-the-design-

construction-and-operation-of-sustainable-buildings

Architecture 2030, 2030 Palette* - http://2030palette.org/

BC Housing, Building Envelope Thermal Bridging Guide, https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/residential-

design-construction/building-envelope-thermal-bridging-guide&sortType=sortByDate

BC Housing, Heat Recovery Ventilation Guide for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings - https://www.bchousing.org/research-
centre/library/residential-design-construction/heat-recovery-ventilation-guide-murbs&sortType=sortByDate

BC Housing, Illustrated Guide - Achieving Airtight Buildings - https://www.bchousing.org/research-

centre/library/residential-design-construction/achieving-airtight-buildings&sortType=sortByDate

BC Housing, Low Thermal Energy Demand for Large Buildings, https://www.bchousing.org/research-

centre/library/residential-design-construction/guide-low-energy-demand-large-buildings&sortType=sortByDate

BuildingGreen* - https://www.buildinggreen.com/

Building Transparency, The Embodied Carbon Construction Calculator* - https://www.buildingtransparency.org/en/

International Living Future Institute, Living Building Challenge Resources* - https://living-future.org/lbc-3_1/resources/

KT Innovations, Tally® Life Cycle Assessment App* - https://www.choosetally.com/

Ted Kesik & Liam O’Brien, MURB Design Guide - https://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/faculty/kesik_t/MURB-Design-

Guide/MURB-Design-Guide-v1.0-Jan2017.pdf

Whole Building Design Guide, Resource Pages* - https://www.wbdg.org/resources

* US or International Reference

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 81
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Case Study Example

Below is an example of mitigation and sustainability strategies established for a supportive housing building in central
Vancouver, BC. Residents are homeless or at risk of homelessness, aboriginal peoples, women with children fleeing abusive
relationships people with mental and physical disabilities, those with addictions. The largest proportion of residents are
youths. Strategies are based on the goals established in Section 9.

Note: This example is hypothetical and for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions or strategies
and should not be substituted for actual mitigation and sustainability strategy development by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2080

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential Address, Vancouver

Figures 15 &16. Supportive Housing Project, Vancouver

(Images courtesy of NSDA Architects, by permission. Photographer: Derek Lepper)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 82
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

11a. Climate Mitigation Strategies

Step 1 – List mitigation goals from Section 9 and develop an initial list of mitigation strategies.
Mitigation Goals Proposed Mitigation Strategies Completed by
Meet Passive House criteria for 1. Passive House Certified windows
maximum space heating demand
(or load), cooling demand (or load), 2. Optimized insulation to meet Passive House
air leakage, and total primary
energy renewable (PER). 3. Spray foam insulation for air leakage

4. All LED lighting

OD, AR, ME, ST,
SU, CM
5. Reduced window size w/operable panel for air
circulation

6. High efficiency (>75%) centralized rooftop HRV’s &

electric baseboards if needed

7. Thermal break detailing for shading

40% reduction in embodied GHG 8. Mass timber or hybrid mass timber structure
emissions as compared to a 2018
OD, AR, CM, ST
baseline 9. High recycled content windows & window wall systems
and exterior shades

Step 2 – Determine if the proposed mitigation strategies meet the main project requirements from Section 1 and do not
conflict with other mitigation or sustainability goals listed in Section 9.
Proposed Mitigation Strategies Meets Codes Meets Program Aligns w/ Completed by
& Zoning & OPR Other Goals
1. Passive House Certified windows Y Partial N
AR, SU
2. Optimized insulation to meet Passive House Y TBD Y
AR, SU
3. Spray foam insulation for air leakage Y N N AR, SU

4. All LED lighting Y Y Y ME

5. Reduced window size w/operable panel for TBD TBD Y AR, SU

air circulation

6. High efficiency (>75%) centralized rooftop Y TBD Y ME

HRV’s & electric baseboards if needed

7. Thermal break detailing for shading TBD TBD Y ST

8. Mass timber or hybrid mass timber structure TBD Y Y AR, ST

9. High recycled content windows & window TBD Y TBD AR, CM

wall systems and exterior shades

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 83
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Step 3. List selected strategies and follow-up tasks

Selected Mitigation Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1. Passive House Certified windows Cost estimate and embodied AR, CE, SU
GHG analysis.
2. Optimized insulation to meet Passive House Energy model (present and SU, AR
future climate) to determine
thickness & impact on interiors.
3. Spray foam insulation for air leakage Investigate alternatives SU, CM, AR
w/lower embodied GHGs/ VOCs
4. All LED lighting Energy model & cost estimate. ME, CE
5. Reduced window size w/operable panel for Verify w/ City re: façade; Cost SU, CE, AR
air circulation estimate; daylight analysis.
6. High efficiency (>75%) centralized rooftop Discuss maintenance & ME, OD, FM
HRV’s & electric baseboards if needed operations with OD & FM.
7. Thermal break detailing for shading Verify viable code-compliant ST, CE
options; Cost estimate.
8. Mass timber or hybrid mass timber structure Precedent research. Integrated OD, AR, ST,
workshop to determine CM, CE, ME, SC
viability.
9. High recycled content windows & window Verify for manufacturers that CM, AR, SU
wall systems and exterior shades provide high recycled content
and can meet CSA/ Passive
House standards.

11b. Sustainability Strategies

Step 1 – List sustainability goals from Section 9 and develop an initial list of sustainability strategies.
Sustainability Goals Proposed Sustainability Strategies Completed by
Manage 80% percentile rainfall 1. Semi-Intensive or intensive green roof
event per LEED SS Rainwater
Management credit 2. Stormwater tank in P1, with treatment for non-potable
reuse in toilet flushing

Meet Vancouver’s water efficiency 3. 1.5 GPM showerheads

requirements + showerhead flow
OD, AR, SU, ME,
reduction of additional 20%.
ST, SC, LA, CM
Others as
Meet 2018 BC Building Code + LEED 4. Ensure HRVs specified meet minimum ventilation
applicable
EQ Minimum Indoor Air Quality requirements, and ensure minimum MERV 11 filters
Prerequisite

Eliminate Red-list materials where 5. Red-list free linoleum (verify adhesives)

there is significant direct exposure
to occupants (finishes, hardware, 6. Red-list free kitchen & bathroom cabinetry substrates
furniture, etc.)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 84
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Step 2 – Determine if the proposed sustainability strategies meet the main project requirements from Section 1 and do not
conflict with other mitigation or sustainability goals listed in Section 9.
Proposed Sustainability Strategies Meets Codes Meets Program Aligns w/ Completed by
& Zoning & OPR Other Goals
1. Semi-Intensive or intensive green roof TBD TBD Y
LA, ST, AR, SC
2. Stormwater tank in P1, with treatment for TBD TBD Y SC, ME, AR
non-potable reuse in toilet flushing

3. 1.5 GPM showerheads Y TBD Y ME

4. Ensure HRVs specified meet minimum Y Y TBD ME

ventilation requirements, and ensure
minimum MERV 11 filters

5. Red-list free linoleum (verify adhesives) Y TBD TBD AR, SU

6. Red-list free kitchen & bathroom cabinetry Y Y TBD AR, SU

substrates

Step 3. List selected strategies and follow-up tasks (e.g. verification for code compliance, cost & technical analysis, etc.)
Selected Sustainability Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1. Semi-Intensive or intensive green roof Meet with City officials to LA, SC, FM, CE
determine possible variances;
Meet w/ FM re: maintenance;
Cost estimate.
2. Stormwater tank in P1, with treatment for Meet with City officials to SC, ME, AR, CE
non-potable reuse in toilet flushing discuss treatment & reuse; Meet
w/ FM re: maintenance;
Concept design for cost
estimate.
3. 1.5 GPM showerheads Research and test models for ME, OD, FM,
viability. AR
4. Ensure HRVs specified meet minimum Verify alignment with Passive ME, SU
ventilation requirements, and ensure House requirements.
minimum MERV 11 filters
5. Red-list free linoleum (verify adhesives) Research available products, SU, AR
costs, maintenance and
embodied GHG.
6. Red-list free kitchen & bathroom cabinetry Research available products, SU, AR
substrates costs, maintenance and
embodied GHG.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 85
Section 11 – Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ General % budget allocation for climate mitigation and sustainability OD
Financing measures, and quantify potential cost-benefits if possible
Pre-Design ▪ N/A
Schematic Design ▪ Completed Section 11 of the IBAMA framework See 11a-b
▪ Assessment report of proposed mitigation and sustainability strategies AR, SU, LA,
including strategy evaluation scores Engineers
▪ Preliminary cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM
Design ▪ Updated Section 11 of IBAMA framework See 11a-b
Development ▪ Report on development of proposed mitigation and sustainability strategies AR, SU, LA,
Engineers
▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM
▪ Peer-review evaluation report of strategies to confirm alignment with initial Peer Reviewer
mitigation/sustainability goals, as well as proposed adjustments
Construction ▪ Updated Section 11 of IBAMA framework See 11a-b
Documents ▪ Report on development of proposed mitigation and sustainability strategies AR, SU, LA,
▪ Further development of technical strategies in drawings and specifications Engineers
▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM
Project ▪ Ongoing construction meeting agenda item for IBAMA strategies in meeting CM
Construction minutes
▪ Monthly IBAMA-related construction report CM
▪ Schedule of IBAMA-related site visits to review implementation of strategies CM
▪ IBAMA site visit reports by IBAMA design & construction leads AR, SU, LA,
Engineers
As-built/ ▪ Summary of mitigation and sustainability goals and strategies
Occupancy ▪ Manual and/or training video for building managers and operators focusing AR, SU, others
on proposed strategies as needed

Post-Occupancy ▪ Testing and inspections schedule for mitigation and sustainability systems FM, ME, CX
▪ Annual commissioning of building systems Agent
▪ Resident education video including energy efficiency and sustainability best OD, RR
practices

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 86
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

Section 12 - Evaluation of Strategies

Description
Section 12 enables the project team to carry out a high-level assessment of proposed adaptation, mitigation and
sustainability strategies according to consistent evaluation criteria. This will help decision-makers prioritize which
strategies to pursue. Interactions between adaptation and mitigation/sustainability strategies are the foremost priority
of IBAMA and are weighted accordingly in the strategy assessment scoring. However, other factors typically associated
with design and construction are also included, such as technical feasibility, project requirements and costs. Should the
project team determine that a proposed strategy does not have an adequate score in any or all of the evaluation
categories, they may elect to revise goals and/or strategies.

Evaluation Criteria Definitions

Avoided Costs or Losses
Effectiveness
Equity
Independence from external
systems/services
Indirect Costs or Benefits
Opportunity Costs
Reliability/Functionality
Resilience Dividend
Hazard-related economics costs or losses that were avoided due to specific
adaptation or resilience measures.
The degree to which a strategy is effective at reducing risk or GHG emissions. For
example, an extensive green roof may have low effectiveness at reducing
stormwater runoff while an intensive green roof may have moderately effectiveness.
A concept concerned with the fair and equitable provision, implementation, and
impact of services, programs, and policies.
The degree to which a strategy is reliant on the functioning of an externally provided
system or service such as an electric utility or municipal transportation service.
Hazard-related costs or benefits that are not borne by or directed to the project
owner or developer, but by or to entities external to the project.
The economic benefits that are missed when selecting one strategy over another.
The degree to which a strategy can reliably function in order to achieve the desired
goal. For example, having residents opening windows for natural ventilation to
reduce artificial cooling is not a highly reliable strategy, whereas automated shutoff
of cooling systems below a specific temperature is a more reliable strategy.
The difference in the outcomes between a scenario with a resilience approach and
one with a non-resilient business-as-usual approach. It quantifies both the direct
returns to the immediate resilience goal, as well as the societal and financial co-
benefits. These can include value-added to the project and regenerative potential.

Parameters

12. Evaluation of Strategies

12a. Strategy Evaluation Criteria – Ownership Priorities

Before evaluating the various adaptation, mitigation, and sustainability strategies, the ownership team should determine
their overall priorities for the project. This is done by distributing 200 points across the 21 evaluation criteria, with the most
points allocated to criteria that have the highest priority. For example, if there will be limited staff to maintain the building,
more points might be allocated to criteria T2 - Simplicity of management/operations. This will result in a weighted scoring of
the proposed strategies from Sections 10 and 11, with ownership priorities more heavily weighted. Point allocation should
be carried out in Section 12a of the Excel tool.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 87
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12a

Given the focus on climate adaptation and mitigation, a minimum of 25 points should be allocated to criteria
A1 - Meeting/Leveraging climate adaptation goals , and M1 - Meeting/Leveraging climate mitigation/sustainability goals.

Evaluation Criteria Points

Distribute 200 points amongst the following criteria, allocating more points to criteria with higher priorities,
0 points if not applicable. A minimum 25 points each must be allocated to criteria A1 & M1.
A1. Meeting/Leveraging climate adaptation goals Min. 25
Adaptation
Climate

A2. Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk

A3. Reliability to be able to function during hazard
Min. 25
Sustainability

M1. Meeting/Leveraging climate mitigation and sustainability goals

Mitigation &
Climate

M2. Effectiveness in reducing GHGs

M3. Reliability/ Functionality in reducing emissions

T1. Simplicity of implementation

Requirements
Technical

T2. Simplicity of management/operations

T3. Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of strategy
T4. Independence from external systems/services
Requirements

P1. Alignment with other project goals/ requirements

Project

P2. Contributes to occupant health, comfort and well-being

P3. Redresses current inequities or improves equity

C1. Minimizes additional design costs

Direct Costs

C2. Minimizes additional construction costs

C3. Minimizes total project costs
C4. Minimizes operations & maintenance costs
I1. Low opportunity costs
Indirect Costs &
Benefits

I2. Avoids hazard-related costs (avoided costs or losses)

I3. Low indirect costs (displacement, emergency management, health costs)
I4. High resilience dividends & value-added
O1. Other criteria (defined by team)
Other

O2. Other criteria (defined by team)

O3. Other criteria (defined by team)
Total 200

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 88
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12b

12b. Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies (see Appendix B for additional worksheets)

Using the evaluation criteria listed in Section 12a, the project team should evaluate the adaptation strategies proposed in
Section 10 for each of the top hazards identified. Strategies can be assessed as High, Medium or Low in how well they
perform with respect to the evaluation criteria. Evaluation of strategies should be carried out in the Excel tool.

Hazard (describe) Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Completed

(describe) (describe) (describe) (describe) by
Evaluation Criteria H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Adaptation

adaptation goals
Climate

Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk AC

Reliability to be able to function
during hazard
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Sustainability
Mitigation &

mitigation and sustainability goals

Climate

Effectiveness in reducing GHGs SU

Reliability/ Functionality in reducing
emissions
Simplicity of implementation
Requirements

Simplicity of management/operations
Technical

Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of Varies

strategy
Independence from external
systems/services
Alignment with other project goals/
requirements
Requirements

Contributes to occupant health,

Project

comfort and well-being Varies

Redresses current inequities or
improves equity

Minimizes additional design costs

Minimizes additional construction
Direct Costs

costs CE, Others

Minimizes total project costs as required
Minimizes operations & maintenance
costs
Low opportunity costs
Indirect Costs &

Avoided costs or losses CE, AC,

Benefits

Others as
Low indirect costs
required
High resilience dividends & value-
added
Other criteria (defined by team)
Other

Varies
Other criteria (defined by team)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 89
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12c

When evaluating proposed strategies with respect to Climate Adaptation or Climate Mitigation & Sustainability criteria, refer
to the goals established in Sections 8 and 9. For adaptation strategies, determine how the strategy may impact mitigation
goals (operational GHGs, embodied GHGs, renewable energy) or sustainability goals . With respect to embodied GHG goals,
consider factors such as the need for additional space, additional equipment, additional materials, or different types of
materials, all of which may increase embodied GHGs.

If required, copy the Excel spreadsheet to analyse strategies with respect to each distinct mitigation and sustainability goal.

12c. Scoring of Adaptation Strategies

Based on the points allocated to the criteria in Section 12a and the evaluations in Section 12b, a weighted score is
calculated in the Excel tool for each adaptation strategy. The maximum possible score is 1000, representing a strategy with
the highest favourability. The minimum possible score is 200. A score between 600-750 is considered acceptable with certain
limitations, while a score below 600 would be considered unacceptable and trigger the team to propose alternatives. The
strategy must also achieve a minimum score of 100 in both the Climate Adaptation and the Climate Mitigation &
Sustainability categories, with strategies scoring above 150 in both categories deemed as synergistic.

A summary of the scores of the strategies proposed for each of the top hazards will be generated in the Excel tool:
Adaptation Strategy Scoring Summary
Hazard (describe) Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5

Climate Adaptation

Climate Mitigation &

Sustainability

Technical Requirements

Project Requirements

Direct Costs

Indirect Costs & Benefits

TOTAL SCORE

If any of the strategies has a score below 600, or a score of below 100 in the Climate Adaptation or Climate Mitigation &
Sustainability categories, the project team should revise the original adaptation strategies in Section 10 to develop
alternate approaches.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 90
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12c

The Excel tool will generate a bar chart for each hazard, comparing total scores of the proposed adaptation strategies
(Figure 17).

Figure 17. Example Bar Chart Comparing Adaptation Strategy Scores

For each group of strategies analyzed, the Excel tool will generate a radar chart indicating relative scoring of each
adaptation strategy in each of the evaluation criteria categories (Figure 18). This will enable project teams to carry out more
nuanced decision-making to determine which strategies are selected.

Figure 18. Example Radar Chart Comparing Adaptation Strategy Scores by Evaluation Category

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 91
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12d

For strategies scoring between 600 and 750, review the scores of the categories and/or individual evaluation criteria to
determine if the strategy should be developed further. Some questions that can be asked to determine this are:
▪ In which categories/criteria are the lowest scores? How high of a priority are they? Can priorities be adjusted?
▪ Are there ways that a strategy can be altered to improve it’s score in a high priority category? For example, if
simplicity of operations and maintenance is a high priority and a proposed in-unit air filtration system requires
frequent filter replacement, would a centralized filtration system with fewer filters to replace be feasible?
▪ What trade-offs might a team be willing to accept for the benefits that the strategy provides? For example, giving
up some resident parking spaces for a raingarden to manage perimeter stormwater would trade-off some minor
occupant convenience for significant stormwater management and flood reduction benefits.

12d. Summary of Adaptation Strategies for Development

Provide a brief description of the adaptation strategies to be further developed and incorporated into the project.

Hazard Description of Adaptation Strategy & Follow-Up Completed Action by

by

Hazard A

Hazard A

Hazard A

Hazard B

Hazard B

Hazard B

Hazard C
AC

Hazard C

Hazard C

Hazard C

Compounding
Hazards

Compounding
Hazards

Compounding
Hazards

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 92
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12e

12e. Evaluation of Mitigation and Sustainability Strategies (see Appendix B for additional worksheets)

Using the evaluation criteria listed in Section 12a, the project team should evaluate the climate mitigation and
sustainability strategies proposed in Section 11. Strategies can be assessed as High, Medium or Low in response to the
evaluation criteria. Evaluation of strategies should be carried out in the Excel tool.

Mitigation or Sustainability Goal Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Completed

(describe) (describe) (describe) (describe) (describe) by
Evaluation Criteria H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Adaptation

adaptation goals
Climate

Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk AC

Reliability to be able to function
during hazard
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Sustainability
Mitigation &

mitigation and sustainability goals

Climate

Effectiveness in reducing GHGs SU

Reliability/ Functionality in reducing
emissions
Simplicity of implementation
Requirements

Simplicity of management/operations
Technical

Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of Varies

strategy
Independence from external
systems/services
Alignment with other project goals/
requirements
Requirements

Contributes to occupant health,

Project

comfort and well-being Varies

Redresses current inequities or
improves equity

Minimizes additional design costs

Minimizes additional construction
Direct Costs

costs CE, Others

Minimizes total project costs as required
Minimizes operations & maintenance
costs
Low opportunity costs
Indirect Costs &

Avoided costs or losses CE, AC,

Benefits

Others as
Low indirect costs
required
High resilience dividends & value-
added
Other criteria (defined by team)
Other

Varies
Other criteria (defined by team)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 93
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12f

When evaluating proposed strategies with respect to Climate Adaptation or Climate Mitigation & Sustainability criteria, refer
to the goals established in Sections 8 and 9. For mitigation and sustainability strategies, determine how the strategy might
affect adaptation goals for each of the top four hazards. If needed, copy the Excel spreadsheet to address distinctions
between the adaptation goals for each of the hazards.

12f. Scoring of Mitigation and Sustainability Strategies

Based on the points allocated to the criteria in Section 12a and the evaluations in Section 12e, a weighted score is calculated
in the Excel tool for each mitigation/sustainability strategy. The maximum possible score is 1000, representing a strategy
with the highest favourability. The minimum possible score is 200. A score between 600-750 is considered acceptable with
certain limitations, while a score below 600 would be considered unacceptable and trigger the team to propose alternatives.
The strategy must also achieve a minimum score of 100 in both the Climate Adaptation and the Climate Mitigation &
Sustainability categories, with strategies scoring above 150 in both categories deemed synergistic.

A summary table of the scores of the mitigation and sustainability strategies proposed will be generated in the Excel tool:
Mitigation and Sustainability Strategy Scoring Summary
Mitigation or Sustainability Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5
Goal (describe)

Climate Adaptation

Climate Mitigation &

Sustainability

Technical Requirements

Project Requirements

Direct Costs

Indirect Costs & Benefits

TOTAL SCORE

If any of the strategies has a score below 600, or a score of below 100 in the Climate Adaptation or Climate Mitigation &
Sustainability categories, the project team should return to the mitigation and sustainability strategies in Section 11 to
develop alternate approaches.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 94
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12f

For each mitigation or sustainability goal, the Excel tool will generate a bar chart comparing the total scores of proposed
mitigation strategies (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Example Bar Chart Comparing Sustainability Strategy Scores

The Excel tool will generate a radar chart indicating relative scoring of each mitigation or sustainability strategy in each of
the evaluation criteria categories (Figure 20). This will enable project teams to carry out more nuanced decision-making to
determine which strategies are selected.

Figure 20. Example Radar Chart Comparing Sustainability Strategy Scores by Evaluation Category

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 95
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies 12g

For strategies scoring between 600 and 750, review the scores of the categories and/or individual evaluation criteria to
determine if the strategy should be developed further. Some questions that can be asked to determine this are:
▪ In which categories/criteria are the lowest scores? How high of a priority are they? Can priorities be adjusted?
▪ Are there ways that a strategy could be altered to improve it’s score in a high priority category? For example, if
simplicity of operations and maintenance is a priority and a proposed intensive green roof system would require
monthly maintenance, could the plantings be modified to lower maintenance types?
▪ What trade-offs might a team be willing to accept for the benefits that the strategy provides? For example, a small
reduction in occupant comfort by using 1.5 GPM showerheads is a trade-off for water conservation and water
heating energy reduction benefits.

12g. Summary of Mitigation and Sustainability Strategies for Development

Briefly describe the mitigation/ sustainability strategies to be further developed and incorporated into the project.

Mitigation or Description of Mitigation or Sustainability Strategy & Follow-Up Completed Action by

Sustainability Goal by

Goal 1

Goal 1

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 2

Goal 2
SU
Goal 3

Goal 3

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 4

Goal 4

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 96
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

Case Study Example

Below is an example of evaluation of adaptation strategies proposed for a new low-income residential building in a suburb
of Victoria, BC. Residents are a combination of singles, families and seniors. This includes a population with disabilities. The
adaptation strategies proposed are in reference to a compounding hazards scenario of increasing summer temperatures
combined with seasonal drought, and a nearby major wildfire that results in poor air quality.

Note: This example is for illustrative purposes only. It is not representative of actual conditions or strategies and should not be
substituted for an actual evaluation of strategies by the appropriate experts.

Climate Scenario & Target Year

IPCC RCP 8.5 2050

Project Address & Neighbourhood

Confidential Address, Colwood

Hazard Referenced
Compounding Hazards: Increasing summer temperatures + seasonal drought+ major wildfire resulting in poor air quality.

Cascading Impacts
Power outages; impacts to water treatment and distribution; stress on health service capacities; supply chain stresses.

12a. Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainability Strategy Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Points

Distribute 200 points amongst the following criteria, allocating more points to criteria with higher priorities,
and 0 points if criteria are not applicable. A minimum 25 points each must be allocated to criteria A1 & M1.
A1. Meeting/Leveraging climate adaptation goals 30
Adaptation
Climate

A2. Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk 15

A3. Reliability to be able to function during hazard 20
25
Sustainability

M1. Meeting/Leveraging climate mitigation and sustainability goals

Mitigation &
Climate

M2. Effectiveness in reducing GHGs 10

M3. Reliability/ Functionality in reducing emissions 5

T1. Simplicity of implementation 10

Requirements
Technical

T2. Simplicity of management/operations 5

T3. Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of strategy 10
T4. Independence from external systems/services 2
Requirements

P1. Alignment with other project goals/ requirements 10

Project

P2. Contributes to occupant health, comfort and well-being 10

P3. Redresses current inequities or improves equity 10

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 97
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

Evaluation Criteria Points

C1. Minimizes additional design costs 0

Direct Costs

C2. Minimizes additional construction costs 10

C3. Minimizes total project costs 15
C4. Minimizes operations & maintenance costs 5
I1. Low opportunity costs 0
Indirect Costs &
Benefits

I2. Avoids hazard-related costs (Avoided costs or losses) 5

I3. Low indirect costs (displacement, emergency management, health costs) 2
I4. High resilience dividends & value-added 1
O1. Other criteria (defined by team) 0
Other

O2. Other criteria (defined by team) 0

O3. Other criteria (defined by team) 0
Total 200

12b. Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies

Hazard Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5
Increasing summer temperatures + Allocation of Light Deciduous Emergency MERV 15-17
Seasonal drought + Major wildfire = coolest units coloured vegetation generator filters for
Poor Air Quality to disabled cladding & at lower for HRVs HRVs
roofing floors and cooling

Completed By ME, FM, RR AR, ME LA, SC, ME ME, AR ME

Evaluation Criteria H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L
Meeting/Leveraging climate
adaptation goals H M M H H
Adaptation
Climate

Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk M M M H H

Reliability to be able to function
during hazard M H H H M

Meeting/Leveraging climate
M H H L M
Sustainability
Mitigation &

mitigation and sustainability goals

Climate

Effectiveness in reducing GHGs H M H L L

Reliability/ Functionality in reducing
emissions M H H L L

Simplicity of implementation M H M M M
Requirements

Simplicity of management/operations L H M M L
Technical

Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of

strategy L H H M M

Independence from external

systems/services H H H M L

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 98
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

Hazard Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5

Increasing summer temperatures + Allocation of Light Deciduous Emergency MERV 15-17
Seasonal drought + Major wildfire = coolest units coloured vegetation generator filters for
Poor Air Quality to disabled cladding & at lower for HRVs HRVs
roofing floors and cooling

Alignment with other project goals/

L H H L H
requirements
Requirements

Contributes to occupant health,

Project

M M M H H
comfort and well-being
Redresses current inequities or
M H H L M
improves equity

Minimizes additional design costs M H M M L

Minimizes additional construction
Direct Costs

L L M M M
costs
Minimizes total project costs H H M M M
Minimizes operations & maintenance
H H M M L
costs
Low opportunity costs M H H L L
Indirect Costs &

Avoided costs or losses H M M H H

Benefits

Low indirect costs H M M L L

High resilience dividends & value-
M M M H H
added

12c. Scoring of Adaptation Strategies

Adaptation Strategy Scoring Summary
Compounding Hazards Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5

Climate Adaptation 255 235 235 325 285

Climate Mitigation &

140 180 200 40 90
Sustainability

Technical Requirements 55 135 105 81 67

Project Requirements 70 130 130 70 130

Direct Costs 150 150 90 90 80

Indirect Costs & Benefits 30 20 20 32 32

TOTAL SCORE 700 850 780 638 684

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 99
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

Figure 21. Bar chart comparing total scores of adaptation strategies analyzed for compounding hazards

Figure 22. Radar chart comparing category scores of adaptation strategies analyzed for compounding hazards

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 100
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

12d. Summary of Adaptation Strategies for Development

Based on the assessment, the following strategies are recommended for the compounding hazards of increasing summer
temperatures with seasonal drought leading to major wildfires that result in poor air quality. Strategies are complementary
to each other and therefore should be carried out as an ensemble.

Hazard Description of Adaptation Strategy & Follow-Up Completed Action by

by
Strategy 1 – Allocation of coolest units to disabled ME, AC
Strategy scored only a medium on both effectiveness and
reliability to reduce the hazard risk. Following thermal comfort
modeling for present and future climates, confirm that units will
be sufficiently cool. If so, allocate the most thermally
comfortable units to low mobility/disabled residents. Lower
floor & north facing units favoured.
If not, determine at which point in the future that supplementary
cooling would be required, and for which units. Ensure that the
project is ‘cooling ready’ with the necessary infrastructure.

Strategy 2 – Light coloured cladding and roofing

Low to no cost modification. Adjust thermal comfort model to
account for change in solar reflectance index of the exterior walls ME, AR
Compounding and roof to determine indoor temperature changes. If changes
Hazards - Increasing are insufficient, refer to recommendations in Strategy 1.
summer temperatures OD, AR,
+ Seasonal drought + Strategy 3 – Deciduous vegetation at lower floors ME, FM, AC,
Major wildfire = Poor Light coloured cladding and roofing to reduce solar heat gain. SU AR
Air Quality Confirm material options with owner.

Strategy 5 - MERV 15-17 filters on rooftop HRVs units

Design HRV system to accommodate MERV 15-17 filters during a
wildfire event, while using the standard MERV 13 filters during
non-wildfire periods. Though this strategy does not meet the
minimum mitigation & sustainability score of 100 due to
increased energy use and no reduction in GHG emissions, the
anticipated increase in energy consumption will only occur when
ME, SU
the system is using finer filters during wildfire periods, with
negligible GHGs due to hydroelectric power.
However, electricity cost and system maintenance should be
investigated more carefully due to limited operations &
maintenance budgets and human resources. Energy
consumption of the system should be modeled for wildfire
periods to assess increases in use and cost.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 101
Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

Recommended Documentation and Deliverables

Note that some of the deliverables listed overlap with and/or are repeated in other sections.

Project Phase Deliverable Completed by

Feasibility & ▪ General % budget allocation for climate mitigation and sustainability OD
Financing measures, and quantify potential cost-benefits if possible
Pre-Design ▪ N/A
Schematic Design ▪ Completed Section 12 of the IBAMA framework See 12a-g
▪ Strategy evaluation report describing adaptation, mitigation and AR, SU, LA,
sustainability strategy alternatives with associated scores, and selected Engineers
strategies
▪ Preliminary cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM
Design ▪ Updated Section 12 of IBAMA framework See 12a-g
Development ▪ Report on development of proposed strategies including evaluation scores AR, SU, LA,
▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies Engineers
▪ Peer-review evaluation report of strategies to confirm alignment with initial CE, CM
goals, as well as proposed adjustments Peer Reviewer
Construction ▪ Updated Section 12 of IBAMA framework See 12a-g
Documents ▪ Updated report on development of proposed strategies including AR, SU, LA,
evaluation scores Engineers
▪ Further development of technical strategies in drawings and specifications
▪ Updated cost estimate of selected strategies CE, CM
Project ▪ Ongoing construction meeting agenda item for IBAMA strategies in meeting CM
Construction minutes
▪ Monthly IBAMA-related construction report CM
▪ Schedule of IBAMA-related site visits to review implementation of strategies CM
▪ IBAMA site visit reports by IBAMA design & construction leads AR, SU, LA,
Engineers
As-built/ ▪ Summary of adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals and strategies
Occupancy ▪ Manual and/or training video for building managers and operators focusing AR, SU, others
on proposed strategies as needed

Post-Occupancy ▪ Schedule for testing and inspections of mitigation, sustainability and FM, ME, CX
adaptation-related systems Agent
▪ Resident education video for hazard preparedness, energy efficiency, and OD, RR
sustainability best practices

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 102
Appendices

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 103
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Description
This form summarizes the key information related to climate adaptation, mitigation and sustainability goals targeted for
the project, as well as the specific strategies being employed to meet these goals. This summary can also be completed
in the IBAMA Excel tool and should be updated at a minimum of once per project phase, or as goals and strategies evolve.
It should be distributed to all project team members, including subcontractors and building operations staff.

General Information
Project Name

Project Address

Neighbourhood

Municipality

Owner

Manager/Operator

Anticipated Lifespan

Climate Scenario &

Primary Target Year

Project Demographics

Typology

Unit Mix

Project Purpose &

Principles Statement

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 104
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Top Hazards, Project Risks, Adaptation Goals & Selected Strategies

Hazard A
Hazard Description -

Project Risks to Hazard Adaptation Goals Strategies to Meet Adaptation Goals Completed
by

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 105
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Hazard B
Hazard Description -

Project Risks to Hazard Adaptation Goals Strategies to Meet Adaptation Goals Completed
by

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 106
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Hazard C
Hazard Description -

Project Risks to Hazard Adaptation Goals Strategies to Meet Adaptation Goals Completed
by

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 107
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Compounding Hazards
Hazard Description -

Project Risks to Hazard Adaptation Goals Strategies to Meet Adaptation Goals Completed
by

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 108
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Climate Mitigation Goals, Sustainability Goals & Selected Strategies

Climate Mitigation
Mitigation Goals Strategies to Meet Mitigation Goals Completed
by

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 109
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Sustainability
Sustainability Goals Strategies to Meet Sustainability Goals Completed
by

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 110
Appendix A – IBAMA Summary for Project Team

Key Contacts for Additional Information on Goals & Strategies

Name Area of Expertise Contact Details

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 111
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 2 – Climate Information

2c. Building Systems Linkages to Climate Change Scenarios
Building Component/ System Related Retrofit Potential system lifespan Potential cost
System Lifespan climate feasibility interactions impacts of
scenario for later (In reference to each top designing to
and year climate hazard in Section 3) future climate
Building Structure and
Foundations

Enclosure – Exterior Walls

Enclosure – Roof

Enclosure - Windows

Systems – HVAC - Cooling

Systems – HVAC - Heating

Systems – HVAC - Ventilation

Systems – Electrical

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 112
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Building Component/ System Related Retrofit Potential system lifespan Potential cost
System Lifespan climate feasibility interactions impacts of
scenario for later (In reference to each top designing to
and year climate hazard in Section 3) future climate
Systems – Lighting

Systems – IT &
Communications

Systems – Plumbing
Distribution

Systems – Plumbing Fixtures

Systems – Fire Protection

Systems – Vertical
Transportation

Site – Stormwater

Site – Landscape and Paving

Other (describe)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 113
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 3 – Climate Hazards

3c. Top Hazard B
Parameter Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the hazard with the second highest score from
Section 3a.
i. Description of Hazard B

List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with

Hazard B
ii. Potential Cascading Impact See Glossary of Terms in
Section 1 for definition of
cascading impacts.

iii. Potential Cascading Impact

iv. Potential Cascading Impact

3d. Top Hazard C

Parameter Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the hazard with the third highest score from
Section 3a.
i. Description of Hazard C

List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with

Hazard C
ii. Potential Cascading Impact See Glossary of Terms in
Section 1 for definition of
cascading impacts.

iii. Potential Cascading Impact

iv. Potential Cascading Impact

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 114
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

3e. Compounding Hazards

Parameter Notes Completed by
Identify and describe the compounding hazards scenario with the
highest score from Section 3a.
i. Description of Compounding Hazards

List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with the
compounding hazards scenario
i. Potential Cascading Impact See Glossary of Terms in
Section 1 for definition of
cascading impacts.

ii. Potential Cascading Impact

iii. Potential Cascading Impact

3f. Additional Hazards

Parameter Notes Completed by
Identify any additional hazards for consideration from Section 3a.
i. Description of Additional Hazard(s)

List the top three potential cascading impacts associated with the
additional hazard(s)
iv. Potential Cascading Impact See Glossary of Terms in
Section 1 for definition of
cascading impacts.

v. Potential Cascading Impact

vi. Potential Cascading Impact

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 115
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Sections 5 & 6 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks

5b. Neighbourhood assets for Hazard B
Asset Description of neighbourhood asset Duration Space & time limitations Completed
(short, by
medium,
long, ?)
Asset 1

Asset 2

Asset 3

Asset 4

Asset 5

Asset 6

Asset 7

Asset 8

Asset 9

Asset 10

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 116
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

5c. Neighbourhood assets for Hazard C

Asset Description of neighbourhood asset Duration Space & time limitations Completed
(short, by
medium,
long, ?)
Asset 1

Asset 2

Asset 3

Asset 4

Asset 5

Asset 6

Asset 7

Asset 8

Asset 9

Asset 10

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 117
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

5d. Neighbourhood assets for Compounding Hazards

Asset Description of neighbourhood asset Duration Space & time limitations Completed
(short, by
medium,
long, ?)
Asset 1

Asset 2

Asset 3

Asset 4

Asset 5

Asset 6

Asset 7

Asset 8

Asset 9

Asset 10

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 118
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

6b. Neighbourhood vulnerabilities & risks to Hazard B

Neighbourhood Vulnerability to Vulnerability Hazard B Risk score & Risk time Completed
Hazard B ranking score ranking frame by
(from H=10 to (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
L=1) Section 3 Hazard) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 119
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

6c. Neighbourhood vulnerabilities & risks to Hazard C

Neighbourhood Vulnerability to Vulnerability Hazard C Risk score & Risk time Completed
Hazard C ranking score ranking frame by
(from H=10 to (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
L=1) Section 3 Hazard) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 120
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

6d. Neighbourhood vulnerabilities & risks to Compounding Hazards

Neighbourhood Vulnerability to Vulnerability Compounding Risk score & Risk time Completed
Compounding Hazards ranking Hazard score ranking frame by
(from H=10 to (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
L=1) Section 3 Hazard) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 121
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 7 – Project Risks

7b. Project vulnerabilities & risks to Hazard B
Project Vulnerability to Hazard B Vulnerability Hazard B Risk score & Risk time Completed
(list key neighbourhood risks if ranking score ranking frame by
applicable) (from H=10 to (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
L=1) Section 3 Hazard) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Neighbourhood risk (if applicable)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 122
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

7c. Project vulnerabilities & risks to Hazard C

Project Vulnerability to Hazard C Vulnerability Hazard C Risk score & Risk time Completed
ranking score ranking frame by
(from H=10 (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
to L=1) Section 3 Hazard) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Neighbourhood risk (if applicable)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 123
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

7d. Project vulnerabilities & risks to Compounding Hazards

Project Vulnerability to Vulnerability Compounding Risk score & Risk time Completed
Compounding Hazards ranking Hazards score ranking frame by
(from H=10 to (Score from (Vulnerability x (immediate,
L=1) Section 3 Hazard) medium or
divided by 10) long-term)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Neighbourhood risk (if applicable)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 124
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 8 – Adaptation Goals

8b. Adaptation Goals for Hazard B
Recap of Top Risks and Minimum Occupant Essential Needs Notes Completed by
Minimum top three risks from Section 7b):

Relevant minimum occupant essential needs:

Adaptation Goals Goal Type Timeframe/

(occupant, Duration/
asset, other) Recovery

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 125
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

8c. Adaptation Goals for Hazard C

Recap of Top Risks and Minimum Occupant Essential Needs Notes Completed by
Minimum top three risks from Section 7c):

Relevant minimum occupant essential needs:

Adaptation Goals Goal Type Timeframe/

(occupant, Duration/
asset, other) Recovery

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 126
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

8d. Adaptation Goals for Compounding Hazards

Recap of Top Risks and Minimum Occupant Essential Needs Notes Completed by
Minimum top three risks from Section 7d):

Relevant minimum occupant essential needs:

Adaptation Goals Goal Type Timeframe/

(occupant, Duration/
asset, other) Recovery

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 127
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 9 – Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Goals

9a. Climate Mitigation Goals
Description of Mitigation Goals
Mitigation Goal Goal Type Notes Completed by
(operational GHGs,
embodied GHGs,
renewable energy,
GHG sequestration)

9b. Sustainability Goals

Description of Sustainability Goals
Sustainability Goal Goal Type Notes Completed by
(location & site,
water, materials,
health, other, etc.)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 128
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 10 – Adaptation Strategies

10b. Adaptation Strategies for Hazard B
Step 1 – List adaptation goals and occupant essential needs (if applicable) from Section 8
Adaptation Goals Occupant Essential Needs Completed by
1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

Step 2 – Develop initial adaptation strategies noting time limitations and lifespan considerations
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Time Limitations Lifespan Completed by
(see Section 8) Considerations
(see Section 2)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Step 3 – Determine if the proposed adaptation strategies meet main project requirements from Section 1
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Meets Code & Zoning Meets Program & OPR Completed by
Requirements
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

If a strategy does not comply with project requirements, it should be further investigated, revised or eliminated.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 129
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Step 4 – Determine that proposed adaptation strategies do not conflict with adaptation goals for the other top hazards.
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Avoids Avoids Avoids Completed by
Conflicts Conflicts Conflicts w/
w/Hazard B w/Hazard C Compounding
Hazards
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

If a strategy conflicts significantly with adaptation goals for the other top hazards, it should be revised or eliminated.

10c. Adaptation Strategies for Hazard C

Step 1 – List adaptation goals and occupant essential needs (if applicable) from Section 8
Adaptation Goals Occupant Essential Needs Completed by
1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

Step 2 – Develop initial adaptation strategies noting time limitations and lifespan considerations
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Time Limitations Lifespan Completed by
(see Section 8) Considerations
(see Section 2)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 130
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Step 3 – Determine if the proposed adaptation strategies meet main project requirements from Section 1
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Meets Code & Zoning Meets Program & OPR Completed by
Requirements
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

If a strategy does not comply with project requirements, it should be further investigated, revised or eliminated.

Step 4 – Determine that proposed adaptation strategies do not conflict with adaptation goals for the other top hazards.
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Avoids Avoids Avoids Completed by
Conflicts Conflicts Conflicts w/
w/Hazard B w/Hazard C Compounding
Hazards
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

If a strategy conflicts significantly with adaptation goals for the other top hazards, it should be revised or eliminated.

10d. Adaptation Strategies for Compounding Hazards

Step 1 – List adaptation goals and occupant essential needs (if applicable) from Section 8
Adaptation Goals Occupant Essential Needs Completed by
1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 131
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Step 2 – Develop initial adaptation strategies noting time limitations and lifespan considerations
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Time Limitations Lifespan Completed by
(see Section 8) Considerations
(see Section 2)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Step 3 – Determine if the proposed adaptation strategies meet main project requirements from Section 1
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Meets Code & Zoning Meets Program & OPR Completed by
Requirements*
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD

*If regulatory requirements are not met, identify opportunities to address conflicts with government agencies.

Step 4 – Determine that proposed adaptation strategies do not conflict with adaptation goals for the other top hazards.
Proposed Adaptation Strategies Avoids Avoids Avoids Completed by
Conflicts Conflicts Conflicts w/
w/Hazard B w/Hazard C Compounding
Hazards
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD Y/N/TBD

If a strategy conflicts significantly with adaptation goals for the other top hazards, it should be revised or eliminated.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 132
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 11 – Climate Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

11a. Climate Mitigation Strategies

Step 1 – List mitigation goals from Section 9 and develop an initial list of mitigation strategies.
Mitigation Goals Proposed Mitigation Strategies Completed by
1.

2.

3.

4. OD, AR, SU, ME,

ST, CM, LA, AD,
Others as
5.
applicable

6.

7.

8.

Step 2 – Determine if the proposed mitigation strategies meet the main project requirements from Section 1 and do not
conflict with other mitigation or sustainability goals listed in Section 9.
Proposed Mitigation Strategies Meets Codes Meets Program Aligns w/ Completed by
& Zoning* & OPR Other Goals
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD OD, AR, SU,

ME, ST, CM,
LA, AD, Others
5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD
as applicable

6. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

7. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

8. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

*If regulatory requirements are not met, identify opportunities to address conflicts with government agencies.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 133
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Step 3. List selected strategies and follow-up tasks (e.g. verification for code compliance, cost & technical analysis, etc.)
Selected Mitigation Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1.

2.

3.

4. Varies
depending
5. upon strategy
proposed
6.

7.

8.

If a strategy does not comply with project requirements or conflicts significantly with other mitigation or sustainability
goals, it should be further investigated, revised or eliminated.

11b. Sustainability Strategies

Step 1 – List sustainability goals from Section 9 and develop an initial list of sustainability strategies.
Sustainability Goals Proposed Sustainability Strategies Completed by
1.

2.

3.

4. OD, AR, SU, ME,

ST, CM, LA, AC,
5. Others as
applicable
6.

7.

8.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 134
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Step 2 – Determine if the proposed sustainability strategies meet the main project requirements from Section 1 and do not
conflict with other mitigation or sustainability goals listed in Section 9.
Proposed Sustainability Strategies Meets Codes Meets Program Aligns w/ Completed by
& Zoning* & OPR Other Goals
1. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

2. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

3. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

4. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD Varies

depending
5. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD upon strategy
proposed
6. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

7. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

8. Y/N/TBD Y/N/Partial/TBD Y/N/TBD

*If regulatory requirements are not met, identify opportunities to address conflicts with government agencies.

Step 3. List selected strategies and follow-up tasks (e.g. verification for code compliance, cost & technical analysis, etc.)
Selected Sustainability Strategies Follow up Required Date Action by
Required
1.

2.

3.

4. Varies
depending
5. upon strategy
proposed
6.

7.

8.

If a strategy does not comply with project requirements or conflicts significantly with other mitigation or sustainability
goals, it should be further investigated, revised or eliminated.

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 135
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

Section 12 – Evaluation of Strategies

12b. Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies
Hazard (describe) Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5

Evaluation Criteria H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L

Meeting/Leveraging climate
Adaptation

adaptation goals
Climate

Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk

Reliability to be able to function
during hazard
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Sustainability
Mitigation &

mitigation and sustainability goals

Climate

Effectiveness in reducing GHGs

Reliability/ Functionality in reducing
emissions
Simplicity of implementation
Requirements

Simplicity of management/operations
Technical

Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of

strategy
Independence from external
systems/services
Alignment with other project goals/
requirements
Requirements

Contributes to occupant health,

Project

comfort and well-being

Redresses current inequities or
improves equity

Minimizes additional design costs

Minimizes additional construction
Direct Costs

costs
Minimizes total project costs
Minimizes operations & maintenance
costs
Low opportunity costs
Indirect Costs &

Avoided costs or losses

Benefits

Low indirect costs

High resilience dividends & value-
added
Other criteria (defined by team)
Other

Other criteria (defined by team)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 136
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

12b. Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies (continued)

Hazard (describe) Strategy 6 Strategy 7 Strategy 8 Strategy 9 Completed
by

Evaluation Criteria H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L

Meeting/Leveraging climate
Adaptation

adaptation goals
Climate

Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk AC

Reliability to be able to function
during hazard
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Sustainability
Mitigation &

mitigation and sustainability goals

Climate

Effectiveness in reducing GHGs SU

Reliability/ Functionality in reducing
emissions
Simplicity of implementation
Requirements

Simplicity of management/operations
Technical

Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of Varies

strategy
Independence from external
systems/services
Alignment with other project goals/
requirements
Requirements

Contributes to occupant health,

Project

comfort and well-being Varies

Redresses current inequities or
improves equity

Minimizes additional design costs

Minimizes additional construction
Direct Costs

costs CE, Others

Minimizes total project costs as required
Minimizes operations & maintenance
costs
Low opportunity costs
Indirect Costs &

Avoided costs or losses CE, AC,

Benefits

Others as
Low indirect costs
required
High resilience dividends & value-
added
Other criteria (defined by team)
Other

Varies
Other criteria (defined by team)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 137
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

12e. Evaluation of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies

Mitigation or Sustainability Goal Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5
(describe)

Evaluation Criteria H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L

Meeting/Leveraging climate
Adaptation

adaptation goals
Climate

Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk

Reliability to be able to function
during hazard
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Sustainability
Mitigation &

mitigation and sustainability goals

Climate

Effectiveness in reducing GHGs

Reliability/ Functionality in reducing
emissions
Simplicity of implementation
Requirements

Simplicity of management/operations
Technical

Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of

strategy
Independence from external
systems/services
Alignment with other project goals/
requirements
Requirements

Contributes to occupant health,

Project

comfort and well-being

Redresses current inequities or
improves equity

Minimizes additional design costs

Minimizes additional construction
Direct Costs

costs
Minimizes total project costs
Minimizes operations & maintenance
costs
Low opportunity costs
Indirect Costs &

Avoided costs or losses

Benefits

Low indirect costs

High resilience dividends & value-
added
Other criteria (defined by team)
Other

Other criteria (defined by team)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 138
Appendix B – Additional Worksheets

12e. Evaluation of Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies (continued)

Mitigation or Sustainability Goal Strategy 6 Strategy 7 Strategy 8 Strategy 9 Completed
(describe) by

Evaluation Criteria H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L

Meeting/Leveraging climate
Adaptation

adaptation goals
Climate

Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk AC

Reliability to be able to function
during hazard
Meeting/Leveraging climate
Sustainability
Mitigation &

mitigation and sustainability goals

Climate

Effectiveness in reducing GHGs SU

Reliability/ Functionality in reducing
emissions
Simplicity of implementation
Requirements

Simplicity of management/operations
Technical

Durability/ Longevity/ Duration of Varies

strategy
Independence from external
systems/services
Alignment with other project goals/
requirements
Requirements

Contributes to occupant health,

Project

comfort and well-being Varies

Redresses current inequities or
improves equity

Minimizes additional design costs

Minimizes additional construction
Direct Costs

costs CE, Others

Minimizes total project costs as required
Minimizes operations & maintenance
costs
Low opportunity costs
Indirect Costs &

Avoided costs or losses CE, AC,

Benefits

Others as
Low indirect costs
required
High resilience dividends & value-
added
Other criteria (defined by team)
Other

Varies
Other criteria (defined by team)

© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0 139
© 2020 Ilana Judah. All rights reserved. IBAMA Refence Guide – Version 1.0
Appendix C – Papers/ Documents reviewed for Document Analysis A

Title Mitigation/
Adaptation/
Both
Urban Scale
Alliance for National and Community Resilience. (2019). The Community Resilience A
Benchmarks.
Collier, F., Hambling, J., Kernaghan, S., Kovacevic, B., Miller, R., Pérez, A. P., … A
Macmillan, S. (2014). Tomorrow’s cities: a framework to assess urban resilience. Urban
Design and Planning, 167(DP2), 79-91
Göpfert, C., Wamsler, C., & Lang, W. (2019). A framework for the joint Both
institutionalization of climate change mitigation and adaptation in city administrations.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 24, 1–21.
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. A
Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49
Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2016). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and A
why? Urban Geography, 00(00), 1–21.
Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2016). Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy A
resilience: A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1654–
1677.
Solecki, W., Seto, K. C., Balk, D., Bigio, A., Boone, C. G., Creutzig, F., … Zwickel, T. Both
(2015). A conceptual framework for an urban areas typology to integrate climate change
mitigation and adaptation. Urban Climate, 14, 116–137.
Tyler, S., & Moench, M. (2012). A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate and A
Development, 4(4), 311–326.
Walsh, C. L. et al. (2011). Assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation in Both
cities. Urban Design and Planning, 164(DP2), 75–84.
Neighborhood & Infrastructure Scales
Charoenkit, S., & Kumar, S. (2014). Environmental sustainability assessment tools for low Both
carbon and climate resilient low income housing settlements. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 38, 509–525.
City of Vancouver. (2019). Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit. Vancouver, BC. A
Engel-Yan, J., Kennedy, C., Saiz, S., & Pressnail, K. (2005). Toward sustainable M
neighbourhoods: the need to consider infrastructure interactions. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 32, 45–57.
Lapp, D. (2016a). PIEVC Engineering Protocol - Principles and Guidelines. Ottawa. A
Kontokosta, C. E., & Malik, A. (2018). The Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index : A
Applying big data to benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, 272–285.
Kwok, A. H., Paton, D., Becker, J., Hudson-doyle, E. E., & Johnston, D. (2018). A bottom- A
up approach to developing a neighbourhood-based resilience measurement framework.
Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(2), 255–270.
Uda, M., & Kennedy, C. (2015). A framework for analysing neighbourhood resilience. A
Urban Design and Planning, 168(3), 129–145.
Uda, M., & Kennedy, C. (2018). Evaluating the Resilience of Sustainable Neighborhoods Both
by Exposing LEED Neighborhoods to Future Risks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 24(4),
1–14.
Weisbrod, C. (2016). Resilient Neighborhoods - East Village, Lower East Side, Two A
Bridges. New York City.
301
Building Scale
Champagne, C. L., & Aktas, C. B. (2016). Assessing the Resilience of LEED Certified Both
Green Buildings. Procedia Engineering, 145, 380–387.
Burroughs, S. (2017). Development of a Tool for Assessing Commercial Building A
Resilience. Procedia Engineering, 180, 1034–1043.
de Wilde, P., & Coley, D. (2012). The implications of a changing climate for buildings. A
Building and Environment, 55, 1–7.
Hrabovszky-Horváth, S., Pálvölgyi, T., Csoknyai, T., & Talamon, A. (2013). Generalized Both
residential building typology for urban climate change mitigation and adaptation
strategies: The case of Hungary. Energy & Buildings, 62, 475–485.
Keenan, J. M. (2014). Material and Social Construction: A Framework for the Adaptation A
of Buildings. Enquiry: A Journal for Architectural Research, 11(1), 18–32.
Kurth, M. H., Keenan, J. M., Sasani, M., & Linkov, I. (2019). Defining resilience for the US A
building industry. Building Research and Information, 47(4), 480–492.
Matthews, E. C., Sattler, M., & Friedland, C. J. (2014). A critical analysis of hazard Both
resilience measures within sustainability assessment frameworks. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 48, 59–69.
Phillips, R., Troup, L., Fannon, D., & Eckelman, M. J. (2017). Do resilient and sustainable Both
design strategies conflict in commercial buildings? A critical analysis of existing resilient
building frameworks and their sustainability implications. Energy and Buildings, 146,
295–311.
Other/Multiple Scales
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. (n.d.). Healthcare and Public Health A
Risk Identification and Site Criticality (RISC) Toolkit Threat / Hazard Assessment Module
(THAM).
Berry, P. M., Brown, S., Chen, M., Kontogianni, A., Rowlands, O., Simpson, G., … 1. Both
(2013). Cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation and mitigation measures. Climate
Change, 128(3–4), 381–393.
Cimellaro, G. P., Asce, A. M., Renschler, C., Reinhorn, A. M., Asce, F., & Arendt, L. (2016). A
PEOPLES: A Framework for Evaluating Resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering,
142(10), 1–13.
Engle, N. L., De Bremond, A., Malone, E. L., & Moss, R. H. (2014). Towards a resilience A
indicator framework for making climate-change adaptation decisions. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19, 1295–1312.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2018). Threat and Hazard A
Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR)
Guide.
National Institute for Standards and Technology. (2016). Community Resilience Planning A
Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems Volume II.
Sharifi, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. A
Ecological Indicators, 69, 629–647.
Roostaie, S., Nawari, N., & Kibert, C. J. (2019). Sustainability and resilience: A review of Both
definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment
framework. Building and Environment, 154(March), 132–144.

302
Appendix D – Documents Reviewed for Document Analysis B

Title Mitigation/
Adaptation/
Both
Climate Projections, Hazards, Risks & Vulnerabilities
BC Hydro. (2019). Generational challenge: How B.C.’s generation system is adapting to A
extreme weather and unforeseen events.
BC Ministry of Environment. (2010). Preparing for Climate Change: British Columbia’s A
Adaptation Strategy.
BC Ministry of Environment. (2016). Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia: A
Update 2016.
BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2019). Preliminary Strategic A
Climate Risk Assessment for British Columbia.
City of Vancouver. (2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. A
City of Vancouver. (2017). Resilient Neighbourhoods Program: Kick-off Workshop Report. A
City of Vancouver. (2018). Vancouver’s Changing Shoreline. A
City of Vancouver. (2019). Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit. A
City of Vancouver. (2019). Resilient Vancouver Strategy. A
Jost, G., & Weber, F. (2012). Potential impacts of climate change on BC Hydro’s water A
resources.
Metro Vancouver. (2016). Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver. A
New York City Housing Authority. (2019). Sheltering Seniors from Extreme Heat. A
New York City Mayor’s Office. (2019). OneNYC 2050 – A Liveable Climate Both
NYC Department of City Planning. (2019). Zoning for Coastal Flood Resiliency. A
NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. (2019). Climate Resiliency Design A
Guidelines - Version 3.0.
Scholefield, M. (2017). Rain City Strategy - A Green Infrastructure and Urban Rainwater Both
Management Initiative.
Government and Municipal Plans
BC Ministry of Environment. (2010). Preparing for Climate Change: British Columbia’s A
Adaptation Strategy.
City of Kelowna. (2018). Our Kelowna as We Take Action: Kelowna’s Community Climate M (some A)
Action Plan.
City of Vancouver. (2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. A
City of Vancouver. (2015). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. M
City of Vancouver. (2015). Renewable City Strategy 2015-2050. M
City of Vancouver. (2016). Zero Emissions Building Plan. M
City of Vancouver. (2017). Renewable City Action Plan. M
City of Vancouver. (2018). 2018 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Update. A
City of Vancouver. (2018). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - 2017-2018 Implementation M
Update.
City of Vancouver. (2019). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan - 2018-2019 Implementation M
Update.
City of Vancouver. (2018). Zero Emissions Building Catalyst Policy. M
City of Vancouver. (2018). Zero Emissions Building Catalyst Guidelines. M
City of Vancouver. (2019). Climate Emergency Response. M
City of Vancouver. (2019). Resilient Neighbourhoods Toolkit. A
City of Vancouver. (2019). Resilient Vancouver Strategy. A

303
Government and Municipal Plans (continued)
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2016). Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Both
Growth and Climate Change.
Government of British Columbia. (2008). British Columbia’s Climate Action Plan. M (some A)
Government of British Columbia. (2018). cleanBC. M
Government of British Columbia. (2016). Climate Leadership Plan. M
King, L. et al. (2017). The City of Toronto Zero Emissions Buildings Framework. M
New York City Mayor’s Office. (2019). OneNYC 2050 – A Liveable Climate Both
New York City Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. (2016). New York City’s Roadmap to 80 M
x50.
Scholefield, M. (2017). Rain City Strategy - A Green Infrastructure and Urban Rainwater A (some M)
Management Initiative.
The City of New York. (2018). OneNYC - 2018 Progress Report. Both
Policy & Legislation
City of Vancouver. Low-Carbon Energy Systems Policy (2017). M
City of Vancouver. Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning (2018). M
City of Vancouver. Higher Buildings Policy (2018). M
Enright, P. (2018). Proposed Energy Efficiency and Water Updates to the Vancouver M
Building By-law and Rezoning Policy.
The New York City Council. (2016). New York City - Local Law 31 (2016). M
The New York City Council. (2016). New York City - Local Law 32 (2016). M
Metrics
Alliance for National and Community Resilience. (2019). The Community Resilience A
Benchmarks.
Almufti, I. & Wilfold, M. (2013). REDi Rating System. A
Enterprise Community Partners. (2015). 2015 Enterprise Green Communities Criteria. M (some A)
Green Business Certification Inc. (2018). PEER Rating System. Both
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. (2018). ENVISION - Sustainable Infrastructure Both
Framework.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). (2019). The FORTIFIED HomeTM A
Hurricane standard.
International Living Future Institute. (2014). Living Building Challenge 3.0. M (some A)
Passive House Institute. (2016). Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low M
Energy Building Standard v.9f.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2016). LEED Pilot Credits for Resilience. A
U.S. Green Building Council. (2016). LEED Reference Guide for Neighborhood M
Development v4.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2018). LEED v4 Homes Design and Construction. M
U.S. Green Building Council. (2018). RELi 2.0 - Rating Guidelines for Resilient Design & Both
Construction.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2019). LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction. M
Waterfront Alliance. (2018). Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines. Both
Guidelines
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2017). M
Sustainability. In 2017 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals (pp. 35.1-35.12).
Carou, F. (2016). Minimum backup power guidelines for MURBs. A
Enterprise Community Partners. (2015). Ready to Respond - Strategies for Multifamily A
Building Resilience.

304
Guidelines (continued)
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2010). Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Both
Residential Buildings (FEMA P-798).
FireSmart Canada. (n.d.). FireSmart Home Development Guide. A
Kesik, T., & O’Brien, L. (2017). MURB Design Guide. Both
NYC Department of City Planning. (2019). Zoning for Coastal Flood Resiliency. A
NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. (2019). Climate Resiliency Design A
Guidelines - Version 3.0.
Rajkovich, N. B. et al. (2018). Climate Resilience Strategies for Buildings in New York A
State.
Reports
City of Vancouver. (2017). Resilient Neighbourhoods Program: Kick-off Workshop Report. A
Graves, R., Weber, W. & Kutschke, L. (2018). Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Both
Buildings.
New York City Housing Authority. (2019). Sheltering Seniors from Extreme Heat. A (some M)
The City of New York. (2017). Cool Neighborhoods NYC. A
The City of New York. (2018). OneNYC Progress Report. Both
Urban Green Council. (2010). NYC Green Codes Task Force Report - Executive Summary. Both
Urban Green Council. (2012). NYC Green Codes Task Force - Anniversary Report. Both
Urban Green Council. (2013). Building Resiliency Task Force Report. A
Urban Green Council. (2014). Baby, It’s Cold Inside. A
Weisbrod, C. (2016). Resilient Neighborhoods – East Village, Lower East Side, Two A
Bridges.
Weisbrod, C. (2016). Resilient Neighborhoods – West Chelsea. A

305
Appendix E – Supplementary Reference Documents

Title Mitigation/
Adaptation/
Both/Other
Climate Projections, Hazards, Risks & Vulnerabilities
Cunderlik, J. M. (2018). Study of the Impacts of Climate Change on Precipitation and A
Stormwater Management.
Emergency Management BC. (2019). Hazard Reference Guide For Local Authorities And A
First Nations A Companion To The Hazard Risk And Vulnerability Analysis Tool.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Both
Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Murdock, T., Sobie, S., & Vines, G. A. (2017). Climate Projections for the Capital Region. A
Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium. (n.d.). PCIC Climate Explorer. A
www.pacificclimate.org/analysis-tools/pcic-climate-explorer
Public Safety Canada. (2012). All Hazards Risk Assessment Methodology Guidelines. A
Codes, Policy & Legislation
BC Building Safety Standards Branch. (2018). BC Building Code - 2018. Other
City of Vancouver. (2019). 2019 Vancouver Building By-law. Other
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2015). Flood Resistant Provisions of the 2015 A
International Codes.
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officers. (2015). Flood Resistant A
Provisions of the 2015 Uniform Codes.
International Code Council. (2011). 2012 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. A
International Code Council. (2015). CodeMaster Flood Resistant Design: 2015 IBC, 2015 A
IRC and ASCE 7-10, 24-14.
International Code Council. (2018). 2018 International Green Construction Code. M
National Research Council of Canada, & Canadian Commission on Building and Fire M
Codes. (2017). National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings.
Data
BC Centre for Disease Control. (2019). BC Community Health Data. A
www.communityhealth.phsa.ca/HealthProfiles#panel-nha2019
Statistics Canada. (2019). Census Profile, 2016 Census. Other
Vancouver Coastal Health. (2013). Community health profiles. www.vch.ca/public- A
health/healthy-communities-population-health/community-health-profiles
Vancouver Coastal Health, Fraser Health, & The University of British Columbia. (2018). A
My Health My Community. http://www.myhealthmycommunity.org
Metrics
International Well Building Institute. (2020). WELL v2. Other
Reports & Studies
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2019). Draft Other
Owner’s Project Requirements - ASHRAE Headquarters.
Keefe, A. (2014). Evidence Review: Filtration in institutional settings during wildfire smoke A
events. Environmental Health Services (Vol. 655).
RDH Building Science. (2020). UBC-Designing Climate Resilient Multifamily Buildings. Both
Tesche, C. (2014). Extreme Heat, Cool Buildings: A Review of Alternatives to Traditional Both
Air Conditioning.

306
Technical Guidelines
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (n.d.). Other
ASHRAE Equipment Life Expectancy chart.
ANSI/ASHRAE. (2017). Standard 55: 2017, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Both
Occupancy.
ASHRAE. (2017). Indoor Environmental Health. In 2017 ASHRAE Handbook. Other
BC Housing. (2015). Heat Recovery Ventilation Guide for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings. M
BC Housing. (2019). BC Housing Design Guidelines and Construction Standards. Both
Carbon Leadership Forum. (2018). Recommended guidelines for building component M
lifespans in whole building life cycle assessment.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2008). Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Handbook A
for Public Facilities.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2013). Floodproofing Non-Residential A
Buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2013). Snow Load Safety Guide. A
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2014). Emergency Power Systems for Critical A
Facilities: A Best Practices Approach to Improving Reliability.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2015). Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and A
Hurricanes.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2017). Protecting Building Utility Systems from A
Flood Damage.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2019). Flood Mitigation Measures for Multi- A
Family Buildings.
Government of Canada. (2018). Residential indoor air quality guidelines. Other
www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/air-quality/residential-indoor-air-quality-
guidelines.html
HCMA Architecture and Design, Integral Group, & Focal Engineering. (2019). BC Energy Both
Step Code: Design Guide Supplement S3 on Overheating and Air Quality.
Higgins, J., Haaland, D., & Ricketts, L. (2017). Illustrated Guide Achieving Airtight Both
Buildings.
Higgins, J., Wahlstrom, K., Henderson, E., Finch, G., & Ely, T. (2018). BC Energy Step M
Code Builder Guide.
ICLEI Canada. (n.d.). Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for A
Municipal Climate Adaptation.
Morrison Hershfield. (2014). Building Envelope Thermal Bridging Guide. Both
Morrison Hershfield. (2018). Guide to Low Thermal Energy Demand for Large Buildings. Both
Schoen, L. J. (2010). Preventive Maintenance Guidebook: Best Practices to Maintain M
Efficient and Sustainable Buildings.
Sphere Association. (2018). The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum A
Standards in Humanitarian Response, fourth edition.
Strebly, J., Retief, B., Riel, T., Ramslie, D., & Westerhoff, L. (2018). BC Energy Step Code M
Design Guide.
Swift, J. M., & Lawrence, T. (Eds.). (2010). ASHRAE GreenGuide: The Design, Construction M
and Operation of Sustainable Buildings, 3rd ed.

307
Other Resources
Architecture 2030. (n.d.). 2030 Palette – A database of sustainable design strategies and M
resources. www.2030palette.org
BC Housing, & Integral Group. (2019). Mobilizing Building Adaptation and Resilience A
(MBAR): Design Discussion Primers.
Bernstein, F. A. (2019). Embodied Energy: A Primer for Architects. M
www.aiany.org/membership/oculus-magazine/article/fall-2019/embodied-energy-a-
primer-for-architects/
Building Transparency. (2019). Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator. M
www.buildingtransparency.org/en/
BuildingGreen Inc. (n.d.). BuildingGreen. www.buildinggreen.com Both
Cherry, E., & Petronis, J. (2016, November 2). Architectural Programming. Other
www.wbdg.org/design-disciplines/architectural-programming
KT Innovations. (n.d.). Tally Life Cycle Assessment App. www.choosetally.com/ M
Melton, P. (2016, September 27). Owner’s Project Requirements: What It Is, What It Other
Could Be. www.buildinggreen.com/primer/owner-s-project-requirements-what-it-what-it-
could-be
National Institute of Building Sciences. (n.d.). Whole Building Design Guide. Other
www.wbdg.org/resources
Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Air, Land & Water. Other
www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water
Tartarini, F., Schiavon, S., Cheung, T., & Hoyt, T. (2020, July 1). CBE Thermal Comfort Both
Tool: Online tool for thermal comfort calculations and visualizations.
doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100563
U.S. General Services Administration. (2019, October 9). Define Owner’s Project Other
Requirements with the Customer Agency. www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-
construction/commissioning/commissioning-program/building-commissioning-
process/planning-stage/define-owners-project-requirements-with-the-customer-agency
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). Other
www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Wildfires and Indoor Air Quality A
(IAQ). www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/wildfires-and-indoor-air-quality-iaq
World Food Programme. (2018). Supply Assessment of Goods and Services for Essential A
Needs.
World Green Building Council. (2019). Bringing embodied carbon upfront. M
www.worldgbc.org/embodied-carbon

308
Appendix F – Document Analysis Codes

Code Category Sub-Category Codes Code sub-category

1_Climate Data Climate Projections
Historical Climate Data
Other Climate Data
2_Climate Context 2a_Emissions and Energy Source
Energy Data
Energy Use
GHG Emissions
2b_Hazards Flood & SLR Hazards
Geophysical Hazards
Hurricane, Tornado and
Wind Hazards
Infrastructure Hazards Communications Failure
Fuel Shortage
Other Infrastructure
Failure
Power Outage
Sewer Failure
Transportation Failure
Water Hazards
Multi-hazard &
Cascading Impacts
Other Hazards
Precipitation Hazards Drought
Increased Rain
Winter Storms
Temperature Hazards
Wildfire Hazards
2c_Vulnerabilities &
Risks
2d_Impacts
3_Goals 3a_Climate Mitigation Embodied Carbon
Goals Reduction
Energy Use or Efficiency
GHG emissions
reduction

309
Code Category Sub-Category Codes Code sub-category
Other Mitigation Goals
Renewable Energy
Production
3b_Adaptation & Community Resilience
Resilience Goals
Equity
Essential Needs
Health and Well-Being
Life Safety
Minimize Disruption
Other Adaptation
Goals
Priorities
Protecting Assets
Recovery Cost &
Economics
Shelter-in-Building
Shelter-in-Community
Shelter-in-Place
Timeframes
3c_Sustainability Goals Biodiversity
Economic Sustainability
Health and Well-Being
Other Sustainability
Goals
Water quality and
conservation
4_Context or Scale Building
Human Scale
Infrastructure
Institutional
Landscape or Site
Municipal or Community
Neighbourhood
Other Scale
Regional

310
Code Category Sub-Category Codes Code sub-category
System or Material
5_Strategy Type Communications or
Education
Design or Construction Building Strategy
Design or Construction
Process
Infrastructure Strategy
Landscape or Site
Strategy
Planning or
Programming Strategy
Redundancy
System or Material
Strategy
Management or
Operations
Other Strategy
Performance Target or
Standard
Policy or Legislation
Study or Analysis
6_Other Factors Co-benefits
Codes, Frameworks &
Parameters
Conflicts
Cost and Economic
Factors
Critical facilities or
Systems
Expertise
Organizations
Resources
Social Factors
Synergies
Trade-offs

311
Appendix G – Semi-Structured Interview Schedule

Introduction
1. Please describe your job title, role and responsibilities.
2. How are you involved in the development or operation of multifamily housing projects and/or
neighborhoods?

Climate Mitigation
3. Describe if/how you are involved in sustainability, energy efficiency, or other greenhouse gas
reduction (GHG) initiatives for multifamily housing buildings and their neighborhoods.
4. When do you typically address energy efficiency and GHG reductions in your process?
5. What targets do you reference for energy efficiency and GHG reductions?
6. Can you describe some of your accomplishments in reducing energy and GHG emissions from
buildings and neighborhoods?
7. Can you elaborate on some of the challenges you face in developing and/or implementing
sustainability, energy efficiency and GHG reduction strategies?
8. What are some of the most effective strategies and technologies for reducing GHG emissions
in multifamily buildings?
9. What do you think are some of the missed opportunities in trying to reduce energy
consumption and GHG emissions?

Adaptation
10. Describe your participation, if any, in initiatives to address climate adaptation and resilience.
11. If you have been involved in adaptation and resilience initiatives, what climate hazards were
you addressing and how?
12. What was the process for determining adaptation and resilience goals and solutions? What
were the goals and solutions?
13. Do you consider future climate projections for projects? If so, what do you reference?
14. Can you elaborate on some of the challenges you have faced in developing and/or
implementing climate adaptation and resilience strategies?
15. Can you point to initiatives or projects that you think have successfully addressed climate
adaptation and resilience? If so, what elements make them successful?
16. What do you think we need to more successfully incorporate adaptation and resilience in
multifamily buildings?

Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation

17. Do you consider potential interactions and conflicts between climate mitigation (sustainability,
energy efficiency & GHG reductions) and adaptation strategies? If so, can you provide
examples?
18. Have you encountered conflicts between meeting climate mitigation goals/requirements and
adaptation goals/requirements? If so, please elaborate on them.
19. What do you think we need to more successfully integrate climate mitigation and adaptation
in multifamily building design so that they are synergistic rather than conflicting?

312
Appendix H – Semi-Structured Interview Codes

Code Category Sub-Category Codes Code sub-category

1_Climate Data Climate Projections
Climate Scenario
Historical Climate Data
Other Climate Data
2_Climate Context 2a_Emissions and Energy Source
Energy Data
Energy Use
GHG Emissions
2b_Hazards Flood & SLR Hazards
Geophysical Hazards
Hurricane, Tornado and
Wind Hazards
Infrastructure Hazards Communications Failure
Fuel Shortage
Power Outage
Sewer Failure
Transportation Failure
Water Hazards
Multi-hazard &
Cascading Impacts
Precipitation Hazards Drought
Increased Rain
Winter Storms
Temperature Hazards
Wildfire Hazards
2c_Vulnerabilities & Demographic
Risks
Economic
HV&R Assessments Critical Functions
Exposure
Frequency
Intensity/Severity
Physical Environment

313
3_Goals 3a_Climate Mitigation Embodied Carbon
Goals Reduction
Energy Use or Efficiency
GHG Emissions
Reduction
Renewable Energy
Production
3b_Adaptation & Appropriate Location
Resilience Goals
Community Resilience Buildings

Demographics
Economic
Environment
Infrastructure
Services & Governance
Transportation
Equity
Essential Needs
Evacuate
Health and Well-Being
Life Safety
Minimize Disruption
Other Adaptation
Goals
Priorities
Protecting Assets
Recovery Cost &
Economics
Shelter-in-Building
Shelter-in-Community
Shelter-in-Place
Timeframes
3c_Sustainability Goals Biodiversity
Economic Sustainability
Health and Well-Being
Other Sustainability
Goals

314
 Water quality and
conservation
4_Context or Scale Building
Human Scale
Infrastructure
Corporate or
Institutional
Landscape or Site
Municipal or Urban
Neighbourhood or
Community
Other Scale
Regional
Scalar Interactions
System or Material
5_Strategy Type Communications or
Education
Design or Construction Building Strategy
Design or Construction
Process
Infrastructure Strategy
Landscape or Site
Strategy
Planning or
Programming Strategy
Redundancy
System or Material
Strategy
Financial
Governance
Management or
Operations
Other
Performance Target or
Standard
Policy or Legislation
Study or Analysis
6_Evaluation of Construction Costs
Strategies
315
 Operating Costs
Other
7_Other Factors Asset Types
Awareness
Codes, Frameworks &
Parameters
Complexity & Logistics
Cost and Economic
Factors
Critical Facilities or
Systems
Design & Aesthetics
Examples & Case
Studies
Expertise & Experience
Leadership
Lifecycle
Lifestyle
Mitigation & Co-benefits
Adaptation Interactions
Conflicts
Offsets
Synergies
Trade-offs
Organizations
Ownership
Post-Disaster Response
Process or Team
Integration
Procurement
Project Requirements
Regional Variabilities
Regulatory
Resources
Success or Failure
Time Factors
Urbanization

316
Appendix I – Example Case Study Workshop Exercise

Case Study Exercise – 330 Goldstream – Poor Air Quality

Draft IBAMA Framework Diagram

Instructions
Given the increasing risks to climate hazards and more ambitious climate mitigation targets, BC Housing has
requested a redesign of this case study project (assume that the project has yet to start construction). Follow
the steps below to develop a strategy to address the climate hazard identified and evaluate potential
interactions with climate mitigation strategies and other project goals.

Step A: -Review the project information listed in Section 1, as well as the 11x17 images
(10 min) -Review the climate parameters in Section 2, and the hazards identified in Section 3
-Review the information about neighborhood resilience in Section 4, as well as the images
Step B: -In Section 5, list potential neighborhood assets to help adapt to the identified hazard
(15 min) -In Section 6, list potential risks to the neighborhood from the identified hazard
-In Section 7, identify project risks in the event of the identified hazard
Step C: -In Section 8, identify your team’s adaptation goal to the applicable hazard
(15 min) -In Section 9, identify an adaptation strategy/ies to the applicable hazard
-Review the climate mitigation goals and strategies in Sections 10 and 11
Step D: -Evaluate the adaptation strategy/ies with respect to the mitigation goals and other criteria
(20 min) -Evaluate the mitigation strategy/ies with respect to the adaptation goals and other criteria
317
1. Project information
General Information
Name: 330 Goldstream
Address: 330 Goldstream
Neighborhood: Belmont Park
City: Victoria, BC
Typology: Affordable rentals for seniors, adults with disabilities, and families

Relevant Site Features

- Site is located behind parking lot of the Centre for Wellbeing run by the Pacific
Family Services Association
- Across the street from the Royal Colwood Golf Club
- Bike path directly in front of Centre for Wellbeing
- Somewhat walkable – generally a suburban car-focused environment
- Parking lot fronting site is paved with asphalt, with peripheral planted areas
- Building entry and surround will be planted with maple and a few magnolia trees
- Combination of conventional flat roofs and sloped roofs. Flat roofs are PV-ready

Relevant Building Features:

Building Program: Six-storeys with two storeys of underground parking
50 studios, 39 one-bedrooms, one two-bedroom, 12 three-bedrooms
Ground floor common room with kitchenette and meeting room (~1200 sf)
Bike room in basement
Construction: Concrete Foundation & Basement, Wood Structure, Wood Framing
High performance Passive House envelope with triple-glazed operable windows
French doors with Juliet balconies
External horizontal shading on north, south and west elevations
Fibre cement cladding in dark blue and while colours; Grey asphalt shingle roof.
Systems: Rooftop heat recovery ventilators with ducted air supply and exhaust @ units
Electric baseboard heaters; Cooling in common room; No cooling in units
Roof is PV Ready (structurally prepared for solar panels)
DHW heated by natural gas; Moderate flow faucets and showers; Low flow
toilets.
Electrical room in basement
Project Budget/sf: Average to above average

Building Demographics:
Primary Age Group: Multigenerational
Family Type: Singles, Couples, Single Family, Conventional Family
Income: Low income
Indigenous/Immigrant
or Minority: Assume ~40%
Health: Variable. Assume ~20% seniors, 20% disabled residents
% English Speakers: Majority (>75%)
Ratio Staff/Residents: Low

2. Climate Parameters
Climate Scenario General: RCP 8.5 2050
318
3. Climate Hazards
Hazard: Poor Air Quality from Severe Wildfire Season

Projected increases in temperature, decreases in summer precipitation,

and abundance of dry fuel could be more conducive for severe wildfires.
Annual burned area expected to increase by up to 4% by 2050.

Likelihood: High – 10 to 50% increase in annual occurrence (2050).

Consequence: Major (2050)

Exposure of Occupants: High from particulate matter and other wildfire pollutants

Potential affected areas: Occupant health

Cascading/Related Impacts: Disruptions to electricity production and power supply.

Reduced water supply from increased demand to fight wildfires.

Overall Risk: High (2050)

4. Neighborhood Resilience to Hazards

Note: Neighbourhood evaluation is hypothetical for this exercise and does not represent actual conditions.

Scoring: 1= Low Resilience, 3= Moderate Resilience, 5= High Resilience, ?= unknown, n/a= Minor/no
applicability to hazard

Key Neighborhood Amenities: Adjacent to strip shopping centre with Thrifty Foods, banking, and
restaurants; Adjacent to two gas stations; Walking distance to several fast food restaurants and a Holiday
Inn Express; Walking distance to Juan de Fuca Rec Centre and Greater Victoria Public Library; Five-minute
drive to Westshore Town Centre with indoor shopping centre, movie theatre, banks, pharmacies, etc.

Infrastructure Resilience to Hazard Poor Air Quality from Wildfires

Power infrastructure 3
Water infrastructure 3
Stormwater infrastructure n/a
Sanitation infrastructure n/a
Road infrastructure n/a
Public transportation infrastructure n/a
Other transportation (walking/cycling) 2
Communications infrastructure 4

Building Resilience to Hazard Poor Air Quality from Wildfires

Building Density n/a
% Buildings Vulnerable to Hazard 2
% Adjacent Buildings Vulnerable to Hazard n/a
Hotel Rooms/ Capita 5
Resilience & Reliability of Hotel Rooms to Hazard 3
Proximity of Project to Resilience Hub 4
Resilience & Reliability of Hubs/Shelters to Hazard 3
319
4. Neighborhood Resilience to Hazards (continued)

Environmental Resilience to Hazard Poor Air Quality from Wildfires

Air Quality 1
Water Quality n/a
% Open Public Space n/a
% Vegetated Space 4
% Land Area at Risk to Hazard n/a

Transportation Resilience to Hazard Poor Air Quality from Wildfires

Points of Access/Entry to neighborhood 4
Bus Service Frequency 2
Subway Service Frequency 1
Bicycle Network 2
Walkability 2

Community Services & Governance Overall Neighborhood Resilience

Density of Police & Fire Stations 3
Proximity of Project to Hospitals/Clinics 3
Frequency of Emergency Management/ Neighborhood ?
Communications
Density of Gas Stations 5
Affordable Food Access 5
Commercial and Retail Services 5
Diversity of Businesses & Services 5
Proximity of Project to Banking Services 5
Proximity of Project to Shopping Centres 5
Proximity of Project to Schools 4
Proximity of Project to Libraries 5
Ratio of Municipal Elected Officials to Constituents 4
Level of Emergency Preparedness ?

Municipal Demographics (Victoria) (2016 Census)

% under 14 9.25%
% over 65 21%
% Official Language Speakers 99%
% Indigenous or Immigrant 24%
% Single Parent Households 17%
% Single Occupant Residences 48%
% Differently Abled ?
% University Degree (>15 years) 37%

Municipal Economic Indicators (2016 Census)

Median Household Income $53,126
Unemployment Rate 6%
Not in the Labour Force 32%
% Home Ownership 39%
Avg. Property Value/sf ?
% Commute by Vehicle 48%

320
4. Neighborhood Resilience to Hazards (continued)

Are there other parameters that would be helpful to include to better understand community resilience?

To simplify, which parameters do you think could be eliminated? Any that should be modified?

5. Neighborhood Assets for Adaptation to Hazards

Using the information in Section 4 and the images, identify two or three neighborhood assets that could be
used to assist the project in the event of the hazards listed in Section 3.

Poor Air Quality from Wildfires

What other information would be helpful to know to better identify neighborhood assets that could assist the
project for the above hazards?

6. Neighborhood Risks from Hazards

Using the information from the images and Sections 3 and 4, identify two or three risks to the neighborhood
assets in the event of the hazards listed in Section 3.

Poor Air Quality from Wildfires

What other information would be helpful to know to better identify neighborhood risks that could impact the
project for the above hazards?

7. Project Risks from Hazards

Using the information from the images and Sections 1, 3 and 6, identify two or three risks to the project
(building and occupants) in the event of the hazards listed in Section 3.

Poor Air Quality from Wildfires

What other information would be helpful to know to better identify risks that could impact the building for the
above hazards?

321
8. Adaptation Goals
Considering the 2050 climate scenario for the hazards in Section 3, choose one of the following goals:
1. Shelter in place during hazard – assume four days of hazard and potential cascading impacts
2. Shelter in place during hazard at limited functionality
3. Shelter in building outside of apartment unit
4. Evacuate and shelter within the neighborhood

List a few potential benefits and limitations associated with this goal:

9. Adaptation Strategies to Meet Goals

For each of the hazards, identify one or two potential adaptation strategies to meet the adaptation goal
selected in Section 8. Take into consideration the neighborhood assets that you identified in Section 5, the
neighborhood risks identified in Section 6, and the project risks identified in Section 7. Consider both “hard”
(built) and “soft” (management/operations) strategies.

Hazard – Poor Air Quality from Severe Wildfire Season

Cascading Impacts – Disruptions to electricity supply
Reduced water supply from increased demand to fight wildfires

Select one or a few strategies below, or develop your own:

- Provide additional filters at rooftop heat recovery ventilator units with additional boost capacity
- Provide storage area and purchase additional filters for frequent replacement
- Augment HRV maintenance contract for frequent replacement of filters during wildfire events
- Purchase portable air cleaners for 10% of residents stored in the basement, to be used by the
most vulnerable residents
- Replace electric baseboards with high efficiency VRF’s for heating & cooling so windows are not
required to be open during wildfire events
- Significantly increase size of air-conditioned common area, and install robust HEPA filter system
- Coordinate with Pacific Centre for Well Being to identify and check in on vulnerable residents
- Eliminate most surface parking and plant trees & vegetation to improve ambient air quality
- Shuttle to shopping centre or other community facility that is retrofit for adequate air filtration
- Add PV’s and battery storage with microgrid capacity to ensure mechanical ventilation and air
filtration to common area in the event of power outage
- Generator for on-site power to ensure mechanical ventilation and air filtration to units
- Generator fuels: diesel, natural gas, or biofuels
- Greywater (sinks & showers) collection, treatment and reuse for toilet flushing
- Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures or composting toilets
- On-site bottled water storage area

10. Climate Mitigation Goals

The project was designed to Energy Step Code 3 and Passive House and has all-electric heating. The redesign
now requires the following climate mitigation goals for the project:
1. Carbon neutral in operational GHG emissions
2. 40% reduction in embodied GHG emissions

322
11. Climate Mitigation Strategies
The following strategies have been added in the redesign to meet climate mitigation goals:
- Maintain current Passive House and all-electric heating, and switch to electric DHW boilers
- Eliminate P2 and half of P1 parking, with EV car sharing program for residents
- Wood fibre laminate cladding to replace fibre-cement cladding (not currently BC Housing Std)
- PV Panels and battery storage
- Natural refrigerants for common area cooling systems and refrigerators

12. Evaluation of Adaptation Strategies

Rate your proposed adaptation strategy according to each of the criteria below. Circle one answer for each
criterion. (Legends: C= conflict, TO= trade-off, N= neutral, S= synergy; H= high, M= medium, L= low)

Proposed Strategy:

Criteria Score
Meeting climate mitigation goals (Section 10) C/ TO/ N/ S
Effectiveness to reduce hazard risk (ie. how well will it work?) H/ M/ L
Reliability (ie. how likely is it to fail in the event of a hazard?) H/ M/ L
Complexity to implement H/ M/ L
Construction cost H/ M/ L
Operations & Maintenance costs H/ M/ L
Other costs (health, displacement, emergency management, etc) H/ M/ L
Reliance on external systems/services H/ M/ L
Aligns with building design and requirements C/ TO/ N/ S

Describe the relationship of your proposed strategy to the climate mitigation goals:

List any additional evaluation criteria you think are needed:

13. Evaluation of Mitigation Strategies

Select one climate mitigation strategy listed in Section 11. Rate selected mitigation strategy according to each
of the criteria below. Circle one answer for each criterion. (Legends: C= conflict, TO= trade-off, N= neutral,
S= synergy; H= high, M= medium, L= low)

Selected Strategy:

Criteria Score
Meeting climate adaptation goals (Section 8) C/ TO/ N/ S
Effectiveness for achieving mitigation goals (ie. how well will it perform?) H/ M/ L
Reliability (ie. how likely is it to work as intended?) H/ M/ L
Complexity to implement H/ M/ L
Construction cost H/ M/ L
Operations & Maintenance costs H/ M/ L
Reliance on external systems/services H/ M/ L
Aligns with building design and requirements C/ TO/ N/ S

Describe the relationship of the proposed strategy to the climate adaptation goals:

List any additional evaluation criteria you think are needed:

323
Appendix J – Feedback Survey on IBAMA tools

1. Please provide feedback about the general format of the IBAMA overview document.

2. Please provide feedback about the general structure of the IBAMA guidelines document.

3. Please provide feedback about the general structure of the IBAMA Excel tool.

4. Please list suggestions on how the IBAMA framework and tools can be used to effectively
integrate climate mitigation and adaptation considerations in multifamily buildings?

5. Please list suggestions on how the IBAMA framework could be modified to address non-
climate hazards and novel hazards such as COVID-19?

6. What is your area of expertise?

• Architect
• Engineer
• Landscape Architect
• Urban Planner/ Urban Designer
• Sustainability Consultant
• Adaptation & Resilience Consultant
• Emergency Management
• Owner/Developer
• Public Health Specialist
• Facility Manager
• Resident
• Policy Advisor
• Government Representative
• Contractor/ Builder
• Academic
• Other (please specify below)

324
Appendix K – IBAMA Questions for BC Housing Stakeholders

Section 1 – Project Information

1. Are there any missing parameters from this list?
2. Which information would be difficult to obtain in a Pre-Design phase?
3. What assumptions could be reasonably made about project demographics?
Section 2 – Climate Information
1. Are there any items missing?
2. Could this section potentially be standardized for BC Housing projects?
3. Are there any BC references for system lifespans you recommend including?
Section 3 – Climate Hazards
1. Is this section something that BC Housing could mostly standardize according to region?
2. Who could help develop this information? PCIC, BC Ministry of the Environment?
3. Evaluation criteria are equally weighted. Should we more heavily weight some and which
ones?
Section 4 – Neighbourhood Resilience
1. This section is something typically out of project scope but could help identify better
solutions. How do you think it could be implemented and by whom?
2. Would it require a policy mandate? Who might pay for it?
3. If not feasible to implement the full assessment, how can it be useful?
Section 5, 6 & 7 – Neighbourhood Assets & Risks, Project Risks
1. Is it valuable for BC Housing to better understand neighbourhood risks and assets?
2. Would BC Housing’s project solutions vary based on neighbourhood information?
3. Which types of project vulnerabilities would be challenging to anticipate in pre-design?
4. Who might be needed to assist in completing these sections?
Sections 8 & 9 – Climate Adaptation, Mitigation & Sustainability Goals
1. Would BC Housing want to standardize minimum occupant essential needs. If so, how?
2. Could some goals be standardized for BC Housing, or developed as a list to be selected
from?
3. Are most current mitigation/sustainability goals typically standardized or do they vary by
project?
Sections 10 & 11 – Adaptation, Mitigation & Sustainability Strategies
1. How would you go about budgeting for strategies if they are decided upon during SD?
2. How could softer strategies (management, behaviour, etc.) be considered and be
implemented?
3. What is the balance between strategies mandated in BCH Design guidelines and other
options?
Section 12 –Evaluation of Strategies
1. Any suggestions for the evaluation criteria? Can some be eliminated?
2. Could the priority point distribution be standardized by BC Housing for some/all projects?
3. Any suggestions/comments about the scoring process?
4. Would you need additional support for the design team to help score strategies? If so,
who?
325